( 1 ) ). IN this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution, petitioner-M/s Navjivan Roller Flour and Pulse Mills Ltd. has challenged the order dated 22-10-1990 passed by the State Government in the food and Civil Supplies Department under Section 6a of the Essential Commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for confiscating 50% of the seized foodgrains i. e. , 50% of Rs. 1,21,837/ -.

( 2 ) ). The petitioner is running a flour mill and possesses licences as a producer and wholesale dealer in respect of various foodgrains* The controversy in the present petition is only about certain quantities of wheat. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should nor be taken against the petitioner and the seized stocks should not be confiscated on account of the following irregularities :- (I) Although the petitioner was holding licence as a wholesale dealer (No. 213 of 1981), the petitioner did not maintain any stock register. (ii) The petitioner had purchased from the Food Corporation of India between january, 1988 and March, 1988 wheat to the extent of about 10,83,271 kgs. , out of which 7,04,921 Kgs. of wheat was mentioned in the stock register, but the balance quantity was sold away at Ahmedabad between ll th and 17th March, 1988 without bringing the same into the godown or without entering the same in the stock register. The said quantity sold was not reflected in the stock register. (iii) The transactions of purchase and sale of wheat are not intimated to the civil Supply Officer. (iv) The invoices do not contain the licence number of the purchasers. (v) The price displayed on the board was Rs. 315/-, but there were six invoices mentioning higher price than that displayed on the board. (vi) The quantity of grams stored in the godown was in excess of the permissible quantity. (vii) As against the purchase of grams to the tune of 593 Kgs. certain quantity was shown less in the stock register, and accordingly, the stock register was not maintained properly. The petitioner submitted his reply and contended that - (i) the petitioner was possessing licence as a wholesaler as well as a producer and the petitioner maintained the stock register as a wholesaler and the register is also duly stamped and signed by the Licensing Authority, but since the petitioners dealings are under the producers licence, nothing is written in the stock register maintained as a wholesaler. (ii) wheat has been deleted from the Licensing Order of 1981 vide order dated 27-10-1986 from Schedule I, Part I of the Gujarat Essential Articles (1) AIR 1994 SC 2663 (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. Even otherwise, 3,00,000 Kgs. of wheat was not received at the petitioners premises because the same was purchased from the Food Corporation of India and was required to be directly delivered at the purchasers premises without bringing the same to Dahod. Since the purpose of maintaining stock register is to record the quantity received at the godown and delivered from the godown and since the wheat in question was not received at the godown, the wheat received and sold directly at Ahmedabad was not required to be mentioned in the stock register. In any case, the stock in question was reflected in the purchase register and sale register, and therefore, there was no intention to conceal the transactions. (iii) As regards irregularity No. (iii), since the authorities themselves have found that the same was not proved, it is not necessary to refer to the petitioners defence. (iv) As far as irregularity No. (iv) is concerned, the petitioners defence was that where the quantity sold was less than 10 Qtls. , the petitioner had not mentioned the licence numbers as they were purchasers who were not eligible to be licence holders. When the quantity was more, the licence numbers of the purchasers were mentioned. (v) As far as irregularity No. (v) is concerned, it