( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 228 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the proceedings of seizure of the foodgrains to be quashed by the issue of an appropriate writ or direction.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a licensed foodgrains dealer at Chittor. On 9th and 10th Feb 1973, the D. S. P. Vigilance Cell, Inspectors and other Revenue Officials entered the residence-cum-business premises of the petitioner, searched the premises and seized nearly 2000 bags of foodgrains. According to the officials that raided the shop, there was suppression of stock as compared with the details of the price list board exhibited in the shop. As per the board, the stock on hand was 287 bags of rice on 8-2-73. After the sale of 193 bags on 8-2-73, the opening balance on 9-2-73 we, 94 bags only but there was excess of 1820 bags. The officials thus allege that the petitioner contravened C1. 7-A of the A. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. They, therefore, seized the excess stock.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner among other grounds, also raised the contention that c1. 3 (i) of the Essential Commodities Act under which the Foodgrains Order of 1964 is issued, infringes the fundamental lights guaranteed under Art 19 (1) (i) of the Constitution The further contention is that cl. (6) and sub-cl of cl. (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Exhibition of price Lists of Goods Order, 1966 are in excess of the delegated power under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The far more important question raised is that it is only a reasonable relief that any contravention of the provisions of the order or of the conditions of any licence issued thereunder has been or is being, or is about to be committed, that would give jurisdiction or empower the licensing authority or any officer specified in cl. (11) of the Licensing Order to enter and search the premises and that only on such belief he could seize the goods, but in the instant case no grounds are either alleged in the counter, nor any material is placed before the Court to show that the officers concerned had any such reasonable belief either for entering or searching the premises or for seizing the foodgrains.

( 4 ) A counter is filed by the District Revenue Officer traversing the above contentions.

( 5 ) WE would in the first place advert to the question of there being any reasonable relief for the Vigilance officer to enter or search the premises be fore any seizure is effected. In fact the relevant record was not produced before us by the Government Pleader as it is reported that the said record is now filed before the Session Court where in appeal under S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act is pending against the order of confiscation passed by the District Revenue Officer. Thus, the record could not be produced in spite of opportunity being afforded to the respondents.

( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether in the instant case, the officer that entered the premises may be said to have a reasonable relief before they entered the premises and searched it and later seized the commodities. Clause (11) of the A. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, so far as it is relevant, reads us follows: -. "11. Powers of entry search, seizure etc. : -- (1) The Licensing authority the Taluk Supply Officers the Asstt,. Taluk Supply Officers, all the Executive Officers of the Revenue Department not be low the rank of Deputy Tahsildars, all the Executive Officers of the Commercial Tax Department not below the rank of Asstt,. Commercial Tax Officers all the Police Officers of the Police Department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Director of Civil Supplies or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, may with such assistance, if any as he things fit- (a) x x x (b) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises, vehicle of vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention or the provisions of those order or of th