Judgment LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner is a licensee under the Bihar Edible Oil Wholesale Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) framed under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act and is running its business in the town of Muzuffarpur. By the present application, it has prayed for quashing the seizure of 521 tins of mustard oil along with certain documents effected on 26-8-1977 as evidenced by Annexure 4 to the writ application. 2. According to the petitioners case, the place of his business is situated in Mohalla Saraiyaganj in Muzaffarpur town and the place for storage of goods of the petitioner is also the same. On 24-8-1977 the petitioner purchased 576 tins of mustard oil from a business firm in Kanpur, each tin weighing 15.5 Kgs. The tins were transported from Kanpur to Muzaffarpur by a private motor vehicle. Since the place of storage of the petitioner had not sufficient vacant space, the petitioner took on rent, a house belonging to one Murli Prasad respondent No. 6 in this case, in Mohalla Doma Pokhar in the town of Muzaffarpur and on 26-8-1977 stored the tins there. According to the further case of the petitioner, an information about storing the oil tins in the house of Murli Prasad was given to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On that very day, after sale of 55 tins of oil to some purchasers, the entire stock of the remaining 521 tins along with certain documents were seized by the District Supply Officer, respondent No. 4. It has been alleged that there was no reason to believe that the petitioner had committed any offence and for that reason the seizure was illegal. to paragraph 13 of the writ application, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has learnt that the District Magistrate, respondent No. 2, was proposing to start a confiscation proceeding under the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, but since valid seizure of goods in question is a condition precedent for initiating such a proceeding, the authorities should not take steps in this regard in the facts and circumstances of the case. With these averments, the writ application was filed on 12-9-1977 and was placed for admission on 23-9-1977. With these averments, the writ application was filed on 12-9-1977 and was placed for admission on 23-9-1977. The Bench hearing the admission matter directed notice to be issued and further passed the following Interim order : "Let the seized mustard oil be sold under the supervision of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, by the petitioner. This direction is, however, subject to any confiscation proceeding having not been started in the matter. If by the time this order is communicated to the said Sub-divisional Magistrate, a confiscation proceeding is started, the direction to sell will be deemed to be non est. The sale proceeds, on sale, if made, will be kept in treasury, which the petitioner may draw on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 3. This case was taken up for hearing by another Bench in January, 1978, but had to be adjourned several times at the request of the petitioner or on the joint request of both the parties. On 5-5-1978, when a fresh prayer for post-ponement was made, the learned Judges hearing the case directed that it would not be treated as part heard and may be heard by another Bench which may be available. Since that Bench did not continue. The case was placed before us for hearing. 4. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 has been filed and it has been stated that a confiscation proceeding had been started on 7-9-79 and the petitioner has already filed a show cause in the proceeding which is pending before the District Magistrate. Muzaffarpur. It has been suggested that whatever objection the petitioner may have against the seizure will be examined in the confiscation proceeding and this court should decline to entertain the writ application. The respondents have also denied many allegations made in the writ application and have given their counter version. The respondents have attempted to show in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner is guilty of contravention of the provisions of the order and impugned seizure was made lawfully. 5. It has been jointly stated before us that the seized tins of oil were duly disposed of and the price thereof is in deposit. It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that if in the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner is found innocent and the seizure illegal, the money in deposit shall be paid to him. 6. Mr. 5. It has been jointly stated before us that the seized tins of oil were duly disposed of and the price thereof is in deposit. It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that if in the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner is found innocent and the seizure illegal, the money in deposit shall be paid to him. 6. Mr. S. B. Sanyal, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the necessary condition for exercise of the power of seizure is that the authority concerned must have reason to believe that there has been a contravention of some provision of the order by the licensee, and as in the present case there was no reason for the authorities to entertain such a belief, the seizure has been absolutely unwarranted in law. Omitting the words which are not relevant for the present purpose, Section 9 of the order which deals with the seizure is in the following terms : "9. Power of entry search, seizure etc. - (1) The licensing authority or supply officer or any other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may with such assistance as he may think fit. Power of entry search, seizure etc. - (1) The licensing authority or supply officer or any other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may with such assistance as he may think fit. (a) require the owner, occupier or any other person in charge of any place, premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of the Order or the conditions of any licence issued thereunder has been, is being or is about to be committed to produce any books, accounts or other documents showing transactions relating to such contraventions: x x x x x x x x (d) Search, seize and remove stocks of edible oil and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyance used in carrying the said edible oil in contravention of the provisions of this order, or of the conditions of the licence issued thereunder and thereafter take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of stocks of edible oil and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyances so seized, in a court and for their safe custody pending such production." Proceeding further, it has been urged that an order of confiscation of an essential commodity under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is dependant on a valid seizure on the satisfaction of the Collector about a contravention of the Order and, therefore, in the present case, the confiscation proceeding itself will collapse on the High Court granting the relief prayed for. 7. The learned counsel has strenuously argued that a speaking order by an appropriate authority stating that he has reason to believe that a contravention of the provisions of the Order has been committed is a condition precedent for a seizure and since no such order appears to have been passed in the present case, the seizure must be held to be illegal. He referred to the seizure list (Annexure 4) which has merely given the name of the petitioner, the articles seized and other essential details, but without stating that the authority entertained a belief about any contravention of the Order. The reference to Annexure 4 does not appear to be quite appropriate inasmuch as the same is merely a seizure list. He referred to the seizure list (Annexure 4) which has merely given the name of the petitioner, the articles seized and other essential details, but without stating that the authority entertained a belief about any contravention of the Order. The reference to Annexure 4 does not appear to be quite appropriate inasmuch as the same is merely a seizure list. However, I will assume that a finding has been recorded in the present case in express terms stating that the authority in question entertained a belief about the contravention of the Order, but this does not, to my mind, help the petitioner. Mr. Sanyal placed reliance on the decisions in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. V/s. Controller of Aluminium, AIR 1976 Del 225 , K. Munivelu V/s. Government of India, AIR 1972 AP 318 and L. Kashi Nath V/s. Collector Central Excise, AIR 1972 All 16 . However, I do not propose to deal with these cases at any length, for, there is an authoritative decision of this Court in 1977 BBCJ (HC) 570 given by a Division Bench which is binding on us, holding that it is not necessary to have a written order, expressing belief of the authority concerned about violation of the provisions of an order before a seizure can be effected. I therefore, reject the main objection pressed on behalf of the petitioner before us. 8. Mr. Sanyal next contended that there is no assertion on behalf of the respondents in this writ case of any likelihood of the petitioner contravening any provision of the Order or any law and for that reason alone, it must be assumed that the petitioner is not guilty of any such contravention which could have justified the seizure of its goods. I do not agree with the interpretation put by the learned counsel on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. I do not agree with the interpretation put by the learned counsel on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Dealing with the petitioners case that an information was sent to the Sub-divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur, by letter Annexure 2 about the hiring of the godown of the respondent No. 6 for the purpose of storing the oil tins, the respondents have stated in paragraph 8 of their counter affidavit that the plea appears to be the result of an afterthought, especially in view of an omission thereof in the petitioners show cause submitted on 1-9-1977 vide Annexure B in response to the notice dated 31-8-1977 vide Annexure A. It has also been pointed out that the licensing authority was a District Magistrate and the Sub-divisional Officer had nothing to do with the petitioners licence or business, In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, it has been said that the assertion made in paragraph 9 of the writ application in support of the bona fide conduct of the petitioner is also not correct. The petitioner firm did not furnish the necessary information to the raiding party promptly and only when the authorities were able to detect the storage of the goods in an unauthorised godown in a different part of the town that a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner about the hiring of the godown. On being questioned, the fact that the godown was let out was accepted by the father of proprietor without hesitation. to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, a large number of relevant facts and circumstances have been mentioned against the bona fide conduct of the petitioner. It has been alleged in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit that the godown belonging to the petitioner meant for storage of edible oil was filled up by other commodities which could not have been put there lawfully. The fact that a large number of tins had been disposed of hurriedly has also been mentioned as a relevant fact against the petitioner. The records of the case disclose that the petitioner gave name of a certain person as purchaser of all the disposed of tins. But on being questioned, that person made a denial and said that he was a student and had no occasion to purchase such a large quantity of edible oil. The records of the case disclose that the petitioner gave name of a certain person as purchaser of all the disposed of tins. But on being questioned, that person made a denial and said that he was a student and had no occasion to purchase such a large quantity of edible oil. These facts have been mentioned in the counter affidavit as available materials on the basis of which it is not possible to record a final finding in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has already submitted his show cause in the confiscation proceeding and he will be entitled to a full consideration of all the facts and circumstances in the case by the learned Collector. The statements in the counter affidavit clearly show that the authority has not finally made up his mind against the petitioner. What has been suggested is that the petitioner will have a full say in the matter in the confiscation proceeding, and before any order can be passed there, all the relevant circumstances will be considered. 9. It was argued that the petitioner is said to have contravened the provisions of the Order by storing the seized articles in a place different than the one mentioned in its application for issuance of a licence and in the licence. According to the respondents case, the petitioner was not entitled to keep the edible oil tins in a place other than that mentioned in the licence. In the present case the circumstances in which that has been done are suspicious. It has been pointed out that even on the case of the petitioner itself, no information about a new place for storage of the oil was given to the District Magistrate, who is the licensing authority. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has nothing to do in the present matter and assuming that the allegation in the writ application is correct, an information was sent to the office of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The taking of premises belonging to the respondent No. 6 on rent also requires to be examined with reference to the evidence which may be available in the confiscation proceeding, as according to the respondents, the fact was not accepted on behalf of the respondent No. 6 in a straightforward manner. The taking of premises belonging to the respondent No. 6 on rent also requires to be examined with reference to the evidence which may be available in the confiscation proceeding, as according to the respondents, the fact was not accepted on behalf of the respondent No. 6 in a straightforward manner. In a short duration more than 55 tins of oil had disappeared and in paragraph 10 of the written statement it has been mentioned that they had been sold to some buyers under valid cash memo on behalf of the petitioner. It was suggested that the records of the case should be examined at this stage to which the State Government had no objection. The learned advocate appearing for the State referred to an order and a report dated 5-10-1977 that it had been claimed on behalf of the petitioner that the missing tins had been sold to one Chandra Prahans, but when this person was contacted by the authorities, he denied such an allegation and stated that he was a college student and was not interested in such large quantity of oil and had not made any purchase from the petitioner. No final opinion can be expressed on these aspects of the matter at this stage and I agree with the respondents that all the allegations and counter allegations will be fully examined in the confirmation proceeding, where evidence will be led by both sides. But if ultimately the details furnished by the petitioner in regard to the sale of 55 tins of oil be found to be incorrect and the cash memos and registers relied upon by the petitioner are held to contain wrong statements, then the petitioner must be said to have contravened the seventh condition of the licence which is in the following terms: "7. If the licensee contravenes any of the conditions of this licence or is found to have made any incorrect statement in his application for a licence or in any return submitted by him or any accounts maintained by him, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, under any law for the time being in force his licence may be cancelled or suspended, by the order in writing of the licensing authority." (Emphasis is mine) The condition No. 6 which enjoins the issuance of a correct receipt with all the details may also be attracted. The authorities are also justified in believing that on a proper scrutiny of the evidence and circumstances in the case, violation of the fifth condition of the licence may be proved. I, therefore, hold that it is not possible at this stage to agree with the petitioner that there has not been any violation of the order and the seizure is without jurisdiction. 10. Mr. Sanyal strenuously contended that this court must hold that the petitioner was and is entitled to store the edible oil in any godown other than the one belonging to the petitioner and referred to in the licence. The form of application for the grant of wholesale dealers licence is mentioned in Form A in Schedule II to the 1966 Order and the third item mentions. "3. Description of storage facilities owned or controlled by the applicant". The licence has to be issued in Form B and third and fourth items are as follows: "3. Exact description of premises where the business is to be carried on." "4. Description of premises at which edible oil may be stored." It has been argued that the respondents have wrongly assumed that the provisions of the Order will be violated merely by storage of the oil in another godown. Mr. Sanyal compared the provisions of the Edible Oil Order, 1966, with the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, Bihar Cement Control Order 1972 and certain other Orders and said that an inference should be drawn from the difference in the language of the orders that so far as edible oil is concerned, it can be stored by the licensee in any place other than the godown mentioned in the licence. The learned counsel drew our attention to the form of the licence mentioned in the other Orders. An entry has to be made in respect to the place of business or godown with exact address and location and the licensee has to maintain separate registers of daily accounts for each godown for each of the foodgrains covered by the licence. Mr. Sanyal also said that if the licensee is forced to have a new place or additional place of storage, he has to obtain a permission in that regard. But so far as the Edible Oil Order is concerned, that is not the situation. Mr. Sanyal also said that if the licensee is forced to have a new place or additional place of storage, he has to obtain a permission in that regard. But so far as the Edible Oil Order is concerned, that is not the situation. On a consideration of the provisions of the Edible Oil Order, I do not find myself in a position to agree with contention of the petitioner. The place of storage of edible oil is a matter which has been taken serious note of by the Order, as is clear both from the application for grant of a licence and the licence itself. There are only three sets of informations to be supplied in the application form, namely, "applicants name etc." "address of all the places at which the applicant carries on business in edible oil" and description of storage facilities owned and controlled by the applicant. The second item assumes more than one place where business can be carried on, but the language of the third item in regard to the storage is not in the same terms similar are the third and fourth items in the licence, as quoted above. The fact that the place of storage is mentioned in the licence under a separate head, does not support the petitioners contention that it is merely incidental for the purpose of application in the licence. The very purpose of proper supply and distribution of the edible oil will be frustrated if the licensee is not subjected to a disciplined code in regard to the storage. The provisions of entry, search and seizure in Section 9 of the Order and requirement of maintenance of proper accounts etc, by the licensee indicate the necessity of an effective verification of the stored commodity, if considered essential, for achieving the object of the Order. If it is held that a strict control is not envisaged by the order, the result would be that the licensee can maintain clandestine godowns from which business in black market can be carried on. I am, therefore, of the view that a licensee is not entitled to store edible oil in any other place except that mentioned in his licence. The comparison with other orders is not helpful inasmuch as those orders deal with the articles which have to be stored in comparatively much larger quantity than edible oil. I am, therefore, of the view that a licensee is not entitled to store edible oil in any other place except that mentioned in his licence. The comparison with other orders is not helpful inasmuch as those orders deal with the articles which have to be stored in comparatively much larger quantity than edible oil. The problem dealing with the proper supply and distribution of edible oil is different from the problem in regard to the other commodities in several respects and it can be fairly assumed that while in the other commodities the law has recognised the necessity of more than one place for storage, only one godown is in contemplation in regard to edible oil under one licence. It can be argued that a separate licence would be required for every place of storage of edible oil even by the same person, but it is not necessary to say anything finally on this aspect in the present case. I would, therefore, close this chapter by merely saying that the authorities concerned in the present case cannot be held to have acted without any reason to believe that some contravention of the provisions of the Edible Oil Order has taken place. The question whether on the disputed facts, the petitioner should be held actually liable for contravention of any provision of the Order or not and the articles seized are liable to confiscation or not will be gone into thoroughly in the confiscation proceeding and it is neither necessary nor desirable to express any opinion at this stage. 11 For that reasons mentioned above, I would dismiss the application. K.B.N.SINGH, J. 12 I agree.