JUDGMENT

BEG, J. :— These appeals, by special leave, raise an apparently simple question which appears to be essentially one of act. But, as the real question to be answered was not correctly posed before itself by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it misdirected itself as to what was to be really decided by it and also how it should be decided according to rules of ordinary logic as well as law. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with findings of fact. But, where the errors or logic as well as law, discussed below appear to us to be gross and to have occasioned a miscarriage of justice, we are constrained to interfere.

2. The crucial question to be decided may be put as follows : What did the respondents understand when they obtained permits for the despatch of "broken rice (raw, boiled)" shown in their export permits?

3. If the respondents understood what their permits meant they could not, under the guise of these permits, transport any other kind of rice. it was their duty to abide by the terms of their permits, and to show, when proceeded against, that they did so.

4. Each permit shows : quantity permitted to be sent; the duration of the validity of the permit; the name of the consignor; the name of the station from which rice was to be despatched; the means of despatch (shown as "by rail only"); the name and address of the cosingnee (shown as "self"); the State to which the consignment was to be booked (shown as Kerala State); purpose of the consignment (shown as trade account). The permit was described as an "export permit." The details mentioned above were given in the schedule, the permit was addressed "to the Miller", and its operative part said:

"In exercise of the powers conferred under clause 3 of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice), Order, 1964 read with G.O. Ms. No. 2495 F & A Dt. 17-10-1964 the Collector hereby permits the transport of rice products mentioned in the Schedule subject to the conditions specified below".

The specified conditions, in addition to those mentioned in the details given above were :

"1. This permit is not transferable.

2. It is liable for cancellation at any time by the issuing authority for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

3. It is valid only for the period mentioned in the permit and the consignment must be booked from the despatching station before the expiry of such period.

4. Any permit that is taken out but not utilised should be returned immediately to issuing authority.

5. The staff should be got checked by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer assisted by the Food Inspector concerned while loading into the wagon and a certificate should be got recorded on the permit itself that the stuff loaded is broken rice and not whole rice and the quantity loaded.

6. In respect of self permits the permit holder should furnish to the Collector, West Godavari, Eluru (A.P.) and the District Supply Officer, Tadepalligudem and the Collector of the importing District within one month from the date of issue of the permit the particulars of the Station to which the consignment is booked names and addresses of the buyers."

5. The allegation against the respondents was that they had broken the conditions of their permits inasmuch as their consignments, which had been seized, whilst being transported in railway wagons from Andhra Pradesh to Kerala, consisted of rice instead of "broken rice." After the issue of show cause notices and the replies filed by the respondents, a number of writ petitions was filed on a number of grounds in High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the validity of confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). These writ petitions were dismissed on 25th October, 1971.

6. After the dismissal of the writ petitions mentioned above, the Revenue Officer passed orders, on 18th November, 1971, confiscating only what was estimated as the quantity of "whole rice", according to the standards applied