NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J. This writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an order dated the 5th January, 1976, passed by the respondent-Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, under the purported exercise of power conferred on him under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A copy of the said order is Annexure 7' to the writ application. 2. It appears that the petitioner is a rice mill equipped with five hullers and holds a licence under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1955. On the 7th July, 1975, an inspection was made of the mill premises of the petitioner by the officers of the Supply Department at about 6 A. M. in the morning and stocks were verified. According to the report, 1948.65 quintals of paddy and 3050. 66 quintals of rice were found. According to the authorities concerned, the possession of the aforesaid quantity of rice and paddy amounted to contravention of the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order').A report to that effect having been submitted to the respondent-Collector, a proceeding under section 6A of the Act, was initiated and a notice was issued to the petitioner giving details of the contravention found at the aforesaid inspection. A copy of the said notice is Annexure-4 to the writ application. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner filed his show cause setting out the details of the foodgrains which were found at the premises of the mill and asserting that the petitioner had not contravened any provisions of the Licensing Order. A copy of the said show cause is Annexure-6 to the writ application. As already stated above, the learned Collector after hearing the parties concerned, passed the impugned order dated the 5th January, 1976, holding that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the said Licensing Order and, as such, that quantity of paddy and rice which had been found at the premises of the petitioner was ordered to be confiscated. As already stated above, the learned Collector after hearing the parties concerned, passed the impugned order dated the 5th January, 1976, holding that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the said Licensing Order and, as such, that quantity of paddy and rice which had been found at the premises of the petitioner was ordered to be confiscated. While passing the aforesaid order, the learned Collector, however, directed that out of the quantity of paddy and rice found at the premises of the petitioner 1825.50 quintals of rice and 40 quintals of paddy, which were being claimed by the State Food Corporation, should be released to the said Corporation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hits submitted that the aforesaid order directing confiscation of 1903.65 quintals of paddy and 1225.16 quintals of rice is per se illegal inasmuch as the petitioner has not contravened any of the provisions of the Licensing Order, calling for the order of confiscation. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a wireless message dated the 11th April, 1975, which is alleged to have been ent to all the District Magistrates in Bihar saying that the Bihar Industries Association had represented that rice millers were not being permitted to store paddy more than 2500 quintals in view of the inclusion of clause 6 (a) to the Licensing Order; as the said representation was under consideration, the message said that 1 in the meantime any precipitate action might not be taken. A Copy of the wireless message is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Later, by a letter, dated the 8th August, 1975, the decision of the State Government was communicated to all the authorities concerned in connection with the storage of paddy and rice so far as rice mills were concerned One of the decisions taken by the State Government. as it appears from tile aforesaid letter dated the 8th August, 1975, is that in case some paddy or rice which is meant to be supplied to the State Food Corporation is found to be kept within the premises of any rice mill, then for the purpose of calculating the total limit which the mill is entitled to keep in its stock that quantity is to be excluded. For the purpose of calculating the total amount of rice that a mill could keep a formula was given as to how to convert the total amount of paddy into rice. In paragraph no. 4 of the said letter it is mentioned that, if some proprietor of the mill was being prosecuted on the basis that at the time of inspection paddy belonging to the State Food Corporation was found in its premises, then such case should be withdrawn in view of the decision taken by the State Government. A copy of the said letter containing the said decision of the State Government is Annexure-3 to the writ application. Learned counsel has submitted that, in view of the aforesaid decision, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner was holding more than 2500 quintals of rice at the time when the inspection was made. According to the formula mentioned in the aforesaid letter of the State Government, 1903.65 quintals of paddy, excluding the paddy which belonged to the State Food Corporation, when converted into rice, would come to 1189. 36 quintals, After deducting 1825. 50 quintals of rice, which belonged to the State Food Corporation, the total quantity of rice which belonged to the petitioner comes to 1225. 16 quintals. Thus the total quantity of rice comes to 2414.52 quintals, which is admittedly less than 2500 quintals which is the prescribed limit. The fact that out of the total quantity of paddy and rice found at the premises of the petitioner, 45 quintals of paddy and 1825. 50 quintals of rice belonged to the State food Corporation does not appear to be in dispute. Even in the impugned order for confiscation the learned Collector has recorded a finding to that effect and has directed that the quantity should be released to the State Food Corporation. Once it is held that at the relevant time the petitioner was not holding more than 2500 quintals of rice, as a necessary corollary it has to be held that the petitioner has not contravened clause (a) of the Licensing Order. The other contravention which has been mentioned in the order of confiscation is that the stock actually found at the mill premises "had not been entered into the stock register. In the show cause notice (Annexure-4) it has been mentioned that in the stock register only 432. The other contravention which has been mentioned in the order of confiscation is that the stock actually found at the mill premises "had not been entered into the stock register. In the show cause notice (Annexure-4) it has been mentioned that in the stock register only 432. 25 quintals of paddy and 1223. 35 quintals of rice had been shown. If the quantity of rice which belonged to the State Food Corporation is excluded, then so far as rice is concerned, there is hardly any discrepancy. The petitioner was in possession of 1225.6 quintals whereas 1223.38 quintals had been shown in the stock register. So far as paddy is concerned, only 432. 25 quintals were shown in the stock register. According to the petitioner, about 1471 quintals of paddy were in the process of being dehusked, and, as such, it had been shown neither as raddy nor as rice, but the authorities have also taken into account the aforesaid stock of 1471 quintals as paddy. In the impugned order of confiscation itself, the learned Collector has observed as follows :- "Besides, there was admittedly 1471 quintals of paddy reported to be in process." If 1471 quintals of paddy which were in process are excluded, then 432 quintals of paddy were rightly entered in the stock register. I have already pointed out that, according to the respondents, 1948.65 quintals of paddy were found. This 1948.65 quintals of paddy included 1471 quintals of paddy which were in process and 45 quintals of paddy which belonged to the State food Corporation. After deducting 45 quintals and 1471 quintals out of 1948.65 quintals, the balance should be 432 quintals. 432 quintals of paddy were entered in the stock register. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Licensing Order by not making proper entry in the stock register. The fact that 1471 quintals of paddy were in process has not been challenged even before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not point out before us as to how there was any discrepancy between the quantity of rice or paddy found at the time of verification and the entries made in the stock register. 4. The fact that 1471 quintals of paddy were in process has not been challenged even before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not point out before us as to how there was any discrepancy between the quantity of rice or paddy found at the time of verification and the entries made in the stock register. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that towards the end of the impugned order the learned Collector has given some other grounds for passing the order of confiscation but no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner in respect of those grounds. The learned Collector has mentioned the follow\Dg other contraventions in his impugned order, namely, (1) the petitioner violated the provision of the Licensing Order, in as much as two separate registers were being maintained, although the entire food grains were found in the godown; ( ii ) the petitioner violated condition no. 4 of the licence by not submitting true and correct account in Form-D; and (iii) the stock register was written only up to the 5th July, 1975, and as such, it was not up-to-date. In the copy of the order annexed to the writ• application, instead of 5.7.75', 5.5.75' has been typed, and it has been admitted by both the parties that it is by mistake. It is not in dispute that these grounds had not been mentioned in the notice issued to the petitioner. In the notice, after referring to other discrepancies, it was slated that the petitioner had violated condition nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 (5) of the Licensing Order. It is not mentioned as to how these conditions are alleged to have been violated. Section 6B of the Act, requires that, before an order confiscating any commodity is made the person concerned has to be given notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity. In view of the aforesaid provision, it was incumbent on the respondents to set out in detail even the aforesaid grounds. If the grounds are not mentioned in the notice, it will not only be against the provision of section 68 of the Act, but also against the principles of natural justice. In view of the aforesaid provision, it was incumbent on the respondents to set out in detail even the aforesaid grounds. If the grounds are not mentioned in the notice, it will not only be against the provision of section 68 of the Act, but also against the principles of natural justice. In this connection reference may be made to a Bench decision of this Court in Sit a Oil & Flour Mill Vs State of Bihar & Others where it was pointed out that licence could not be cancelled on a ground different from one in respect of which the licensee had been asked to explain or show cause. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while making a grievance regarding the absence of notice about the aforesaid grounds, has, however, challenged the correctness of those alleged contraventions. It has been asserted that the petitioner was maintaining two registers, one for the paddy and rice belonging to the petitioner, and the other for the paddy and rice of the State Food Corporation which used to be supplied by them for crushing. About the register not having been written after the 5th July, 1975, it is stated that the 6th of July, 1975 was a Sunday and the inspection was made at 6 A.M. in the morning of the 7th July, 1975 and, as such, there was no question of making entry in the stock register after the 5th July, 1975. In my opinion, under the circumstances set forth above, even if the allegations about the stock found in the premises of the petition rare accepted, there has been no contravention of any of the provisions of the Licensing Order, vesting jurisdiction in the respondent Collector to pass an order confiscating the articles seized from the premises of the petitioner on that view of the matter, I an left with no option but to hold that the order of confiscation is not justified in law and is liable to be quashed by this Court. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order dated the 5th January, 1976 passed under section 6A of the Act, confiscating 1903.65 quintals of paddy and 1225.16 quintals of rice is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the aforesaid foodgrains to the petitioner. SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH, J.-I agree. Application allowed.