( 1 ) RULE Service of Rule is waived by learned Assistant Government pleader Shri Asit Desai for the Respondents.

( 2 ) SHRI Ratilal Mahadevji Gandhi of Amreli has filed the present petition to challenge the orders passed by the Collector and the Deputy Secretary of Food and Civil Supply department respectively on 22. 7. 1994 and 1. 1. 1996.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is carrying on his business in the name of M. D. Agency at Kansara bazar, Arnreli. He was holding a licence issued under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order issued under the Essential Commodities act by the State of Gujarat. On 1st July 1994, respondents No. 3 - District Civil Supply officer of Amreli visited his shop. At the time of the said visit, he found that the petitioner had committed the following irregularities: (1) That on the cash memos, licence number was 201 of 1983 instead of licence no. 14 of 1991. (2) That Khandsari was sold in the months of February and March 1994 though the petitioner was not holding a licence for stock and sale of khandsari. (3) That there were no signatures of the purchasers on the cash memos issued by the petitioner to his customers and there were no licence number in the cash memos issued by him to his customers.

( 4 ) AT the same time he was found in possession of 97 bags of sugar and the said sugar contained in 97 bags weighing 9700 kgs. worth Rs. 1,42,590/- was seized. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the present petitioner mentioning the above three defects to show cause as to why action of confiscating the sugar of 97 bags should not be taken against him for the commission of the said irregularities.

( 5 ) THE petitioner gave his reply. In the reply he contended that he is a petty trader and he had obtained printed bill-books in the year 1983 and those printed bill-books were bearing his old licence No. 201 of 1983. When he renewed his licence, his old number was changed to 14 of 199. 1. It did not strike to him to mention the said new number on the cash memos and that it was bona fide mistake on his part in not rewriting the licence number after renewal of his licence. As regards sale of khandsari in the months of february and March 1994, he explained that he was holding licence to sell sugar and therefore he thought that he could also sell khandsari sugar and he had no idea that a separate licence for sale of khandsari ought to have been obtained by him or to get necessary endorsement on his licence to deal in khandsari also, and that he would do the needful in getting the correction done in his licence and without carrying out the said correction he will not deal in khandsari. As regards the third irregularity, he contended that through oversight and mistake signatures of customers were not obtained on the cash memos but there was no illegal dealing by him in the said commodity. Therefore, in the circumstances, he requested to pardon him and not to take any action against him.

( 6 ) AFTER considering his explanation, the Collector passed his order on 22nd July 1994 and he confiscated only 10% of the seized stock of sugar worth Rs. 14,259/- and released the remaining seized stock.

( 7 ) THE present petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Secretary of Food and civil Supply Department against the said order of the Collector, but the said appreal was dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Collector and hence the petitioner has come before this court.

( 8 ) AS regards non-obtaining signatures of the customers on the cash memos and not writing the licence number on the cash memos, the appellate authority has noted that they are technical offence. The Collector who passed the initial order had treated all the irregularties as technical in nature and therefore had ordered to confiscate only 10% of the stock seized from the present petitioner.

( 9 ) IT is very pertinent to note that it is not a claim of the Department that the department had rec