Order.- This petition is to revise the judgment of the Court of Sessions Medak, confirming the order passed by the Collector in C.A.S. No. 4529 of 1968, dated 25th May, 1968 directing confiscation of 92-33 quintals of rice seized from the shop of the petitioner by the Deputy Tahsildar. 2. The Deputy Tahsildar, Zaheerabad on inspection of the shop of the petitioner on 28th April, 1968 found 92-33 quintals of rice in his shop and as the petitioner did not possess the licence required under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealer’s Licensing Order, 1964, to carry on the business in rice, he seized the rice and proceedings were instituted under Section 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner contended that he had applied for licence for carrying on business in the sale of rice and in anticipation of the licence he had purchased the grain. This plea was rejected and the order of confiscation was passed. This was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge. Hence this petition for revision. 3. It is represented that the petitioner died and his legal representative had therefore a right to continue the proceedings even in revision. This contention is not disputed, and it is an established principle of law that no order should be passed to the prejudice of a person without hearing him and in this case as the order relates to confiscation of property in which the legal representative has an interest, the proceedings have to be continued inspite of the death of the original party. (Vide B. Gajapathi Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal2, and Smt. Vidya Devi v. State3. 4. The order of confiscation passed by the Collector was under section 6 (4) of the Essential Commodities Act. This order can be passed if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order made under section 3 of that Act. It is under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act that the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1964, had been passed. This order can be passed if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order made under section 3 of that Act. It is under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act that the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1964, had been passed. Clause 3 of the said order stipulates that no person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance within the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority and it is contravention of this order in the present case that gives the power to the Collector under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act to confiscate the grains, if any, found from a person doing business without a licence. In this case it is contended that 92-33 quintals of rice was found in the shop of the petitioner and under clause 3(2) of the Order as a presumption can be drawn that any person who stores in quantity of ten quintals or more of any one of the foodgrains at any one time shall be deemed to be carrying on business as dealer, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been carrying on business and as admittedly he had no license to carry on the business, the grain found with him can be ordered to be confiscated under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. What constitutes “carrying on business” came to be considered in Manipur Administration v. Nila Chandra Singh4. In that case their Lordships dealing with the contravention of the provisions of Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order of 1958 had to consider whether the carrying on of business in foodgrains without a licence was punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 3(1) of the Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order prohibited any person from carrying on business except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence issued by the Licensing Authority. Clause 3(2) further provided that for the purpose of clause 3(1) any person who stores any foodgrains in any quantity exceeding 100 maunds or more at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the food-grains for the purposes of sale. Clause 3(2) further provided that for the purpose of clause 3(1) any person who stores any foodgrains in any quantity exceeding 100 maunds or more at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the food-grains for the purposes of sale. Dealing with the above provisions, their Lordships observed that even though there is a presumption to be drawn under clause 3(2), it would still be a presumption that the storing is made for the purpose of sale. They further went on to say that clause 2(a) defines a dealer as meaning a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale, of any one or more of the foodgrains in quantity of one hundred maunds or more at any one time that the said definition shows that before a person can be said to be a dealer it must be shown that he carries on business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any of the commodities specified in the schedule, and that the sale must be in quantity of 100 maunds, or more at any one time, that the requirement is not that the person should merely sell, purchase or store the foodgrains in question, but that he must be carrying on the business of such purchase, sale, or storage and the concept of business in the context necessarily postulate continuity of transactions that it is not a single casual or solitary transaction of sale, purchase, or storage that would make a person a dealer and that if this element of the definition is ignored, it would be rendering the use of the “business” redundant and meaningless. It lis therefore, clear that it is not a solitary instance of storage or sale or even an occasional or sporadic actions of storage or sales that would amount to carrying on business, but a course of conduct of either storage or sale that would lead to the inference that he is dealing in them. The above decision has been followed subsequently by the Orissa High Court in Subbarao v. State1, by the Kerala High Court in Natarajan v. State of Kerala2, as well as in Pedapullareddy v. State of A.P.3. These are all cases under the respective Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order of the State Governments concerned. The above decision has been followed subsequently by the Orissa High Court in Subbarao v. State1, by the Kerala High Court in Natarajan v. State of Kerala2, as well as in Pedapullareddy v. State of A.P.3. These are all cases under the respective Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order of the State Governments concerned. The presumption as in clause 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order dealt with by the Supreme Court in the decision cited above is also to be found in the A.P. Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1964. Therefore, a single instance of storing of foodgrain here would not constitute ‘carrying on business’ and would not attract the provisions of clause 3 of the Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order, for the contravention of which the penalty of confiscation as provided under section 6-A of the Essential Commodifies Act is attracted. 6. The order of the lower Court and that of the Collector are therefore, set aside and the revision is allowed. The grains seized or the value thereof realised, will be returned to the legal representative of the petitioner. A.B.K.----- Revision allowed.