UDAY SINHA, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari after quashing annexure–2 and 3 to this application. By annexure–2, the Collector, Patna ordered confiscation of 9 tins of ground–nut oil, 9 tins of palm oil, 15 tins of mustard oil. 13 tins of Vanaspati, 9 bags (90 Kg. each) of Atta, 2 bags (100 Kg. each) of sugar and 28 bags of maida in terms of section 6–A of the Essential Commodities Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.C. Act'). Annexure–3 is the order of Additional Sessions Judge VIth Court, Patna dated 29.7. 1978, on appeal in terms of section 6–C of the E.C. Act.

2. The petitioner at the relevant time was a licensee under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 and the Bihar Vanaspati Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967. He was not, however a licensee under the Bihar Edible Oil Dealers' Licensing Order. The attitude of the petitioner is that he is not required to take out a licence for dealing in edible oil, as his business is confined to less than eight quintals. On 15.2.1977 two godowns of the petitioner in mahalla Bakerganj in the town of Patna were inspected. Certain discrepancies having been found in the accounting of the goods, as also on the ground that he was dealing in edible oil without licence, his stocks were seized. In January, 1978 a notice was issued upon the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the items mentioned in the notice be not confiscated. The grounds for confiscation mentioned in the notice were mentioned as follows:–

"Whereas you did not produce any papers to the raiding party in connection with carrying the business of essential commodities which were seized from your godown, and

Whereas you had stored materials in two different godowns, having no signboard displaying price and stock outside the business premises, and

Whereas you had closed the shop and opened them after due pressure for inspection, and

Whereas you are in habit of hoarding essential commodities and selling it on blackmarket, and

Whereas you have violated the provisions of E.C. Act, and Display of Price and Stock Order 1975.

You are hereby directed to show cause by 30.1.1978 as to why the seized commodities be not confiscated.

Given under my nand and seal of this Government the......day of January, 1978."

The Collector after hearing the parties directed seizure of all the items mentioned in the notice except 15 tins of rapeseed oil in respect of which no discrepancy had been found. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Collector filed appeal to the District and Sessions Judge, Patna under section 6–C of the E.C. Act. The appeal was transferred by the District and Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna. Needless to say, the appeal also failed and was dismissed by order dated 29.7.1978 (Annexure–3). Hence the present application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points. The first point urged by him was that the State Government having appointed District and Sessions Judges to discharge the duties and functions of Judicial Authorities under section 6–C of the Act, Sessions Judge, Patna had no jurisdiction to transfer the appeal for hearing to Additional District and Sessions Judge. The appeal having been heard and disposed of by an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Annexure–3 was invalid and without jurisdiction. The second submission on behalf of the petitioner was that the findings recorded in annexure 2 and 3 had no nexus with the grounds mentioned in the notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause. It was submitted that the findings must bear nexus and be relevant to the grounds mentioned in the notice in order to visit the petitioner with the evil consequences of confiscation of the seized articles. Thus contended learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. I shall now consider the validity of the first submission. Section 6–C (1) of the E.C. Act, reads as follow