G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) IN this case the writ petitioner is whole-sale dealer having valid licence and in the morning on 2-3-81 his shop was raided and 215 bags of rice 54 bags of jaggery, 6 bags of Marda and 5 bags of atta were seized from the shop. In the seizure mahazar, it is mentioned that the rate board was in cement attached to the wall and so it could not be removed, that the rates were not yet mentioned on in the stock register was not shown. It is for these reasons that the seizure was effected according to the mahazar. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that such seizure is highly illegal, arbltrary and capricious. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the writ petitioner stated so, because, even if rates are not mentioned on the rate board in the early morning, it would not be an offence, because, the rates have to be mentioned on the commencement of the transaction on each day. Further she submitted that even if the rates are not mentioned on the board, the concerned order namely, the Essential Articles (Display of prices) Order, 1966 would not enable the officer to seize the articles. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Rule 4 of that Order which reads :"powers of entry and inspection: the controller or any person authorised in this behalf by the State government may, with a view to securing compliance with this order, enter into and inspect any place of business in which any scheduled article is sold or kept for sale. " ( 4 ) THUS, it becomes clear that there is no power of seizure enabling the Controller or any authorised persons to seize the articles merely because the prices and the stock are not mentioned on the board. ( 5 ) THE next ground for seizure mentioned in the mahazar is that the stock was not entered in the opening stock register at the beginning of the day. The mahazar is held even according to what is written in the mahazar at about 11-45 a m. ; that means that the raid took place much earlier. ( 5 ) THE next ground for seizure mentioned in the mahazar is that the stock was not entered in the opening stock register at the beginning of the day. The mahazar is held even according to what is written in the mahazar at about 11-45 a m. ; that means that the raid took place much earlier. It is on record that the raid took place not only of this shop but of other 4 shops and it is only after the raids were over that mahazar is written. Therefore, actually raid must have taken place much earlier to this time. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the raid took place before the commencement of transaction for the day and as such there was no occasion for the trader to mention the opening stock in the register. That submission appears to be probable and reliable. That is because, the raid has taken place at about 10 or 10-30 a. m. It is a matter of common knowledge that whole sale shops are opened late in the morning. That is further pro- babilised by the fact that in the mahazar it is not written that the shop had commenced transactions. The very fact that even the rate board was not written which has to be written at the commencement of the transaction of each day, further probabilises the fact that the raid took place before the commencement of the transactions for the day. That being so, I am satisfied that there was no occasion for the writ petitioner to mention opening stock in the register as by then raid took place. ( 7 ) IT is not necessary for me to point out that it is for the person who raids and seizes articles to show that he has power to raid and seize and to show that all the conditions before raid and seizure were satisfied. Before he could allege that the opening stock was not written he should satisfy the court prima facie, that the transactions had already commenced for the day. There is nothing to show that the transactions were commenced before the raid took place. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Advocate no doubt submitted that this is a matter for the Deputy Commissioner to nquire I cannot accept the said submission. There is nothing to show that the transactions were commenced before the raid took place. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Advocate no doubt submitted that this is a matter for the Deputy Commissioner to nquire I cannot accept the said submission. The reason is not far to seek ( 9 ) THE Deputy Commissioner gets power to enquire into the matter under s. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act if the seizure is in accordance with law. In the instant case, it is the case of the writ petitioner that the seizure is arbitrary and capricious being without jurisdiction. It is a function of this court to find out prima facie whether the seizure has taken place without jurisdiction. It is for that reason that I have discussed the few facts that are relevent to find out whether the raid has taken place after the transactions commenced or even before the transactions commenced for the day and on reading of the mahazar and taking into consideration the other circumstances as discussed above, I am satisfied that the raid took place before the very commencement of the transactions for the day. Hence, there was no occasion for the trader to write the opening stock. No transactions had taken place before the raid. That being so, the raid and the seizure cannot be held legal and valid. ( 10 ) IN the result, I am of the considered view that the seizure of the articles is without jurisdiction as there were no legal ground for such seizure. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned seizure is quashed. The second respondent the deputy Commissioner is directed to release the sezed articles within 10 days of the receipt of this direction to the writ petitioner under acknowledgement from him. No costs. ( 12 ) SRI Achar, the learned Government Advocate, is permitted to file ilis memo of appearance within two weeks from this day. --- *** --- .