Judgment S.Ali Ahmed, J. 1. There are sixteen petitioners in this case. Petitioner no. 1 is an employee of petitioner no. 2, whereas petitioner nos. 2 to 16 are cultivator of village Neora, a village age 50 miles away from the town of Darbhanga. It is said that the paddy that was produced by petitioner nos. 2 to 16 was being carried from village Neora to Darbhanga on a truck bearing registration No. BRJ 1645 in 141 bags on 27-4-81. The petitioners say that when the truck reached near Mahadeo Math a Police Inspector intercepted the truck and seized the articles on the ground that there was no licence or permit authorizing the petitioners to carry the paddy to Darbhanga. It is further said that a criminal case was registered by the police and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called the Act). In the meantime notice was issued to petitioner no. 1 under section 6-A of the Act stating that on 27-4-81 he was carrying 141 bags of paddy from Nepal to Darbhanga with a view to sell the same in black market. Petitioner no. 1 along with the other petitioners filed an application before the District Magistrate stating that they were cultivators and were carrying the paddy to Darbhanga for sale. 2. The learned District Magistrate by his order dated 18-8-81, on the basis of submissions made by the A.P.P. and on the basis of the report directed confiscation of the seized paddy and ordered the same to be disposed of by the Anchal Adhikari through fair price shop and the sale proceeds thereof to be deposited in the treasury. The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the Order of confiscation on the ground that there is no law prohibiting movement of paddy from one place to another and also on the ground that there is no taw regulating the price of paddy at the price offered to them. According to the petitioners, therefore, there was no contravention of any law. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar wherein, infer alia, it has been stated that the State Governments Notification No. 12084 SC, dated 30-6-66 and GSR 51, dated 20-3-1968 restrict the movement of rice and paddy within a 20-mile belt along with the border area. According to Mr. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar wherein, infer alia, it has been stated that the State Governments Notification No. 12084 SC, dated 30-6-66 and GSR 51, dated 20-3-1968 restrict the movement of rice and paddy within a 20-mile belt along with the border area. According to Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel who appeared for the State, the petitioners were carrying the paddy in violation of the aforesaid two notifications. 4. In our opinion, Mr. Jaiswal is not correct. The Central Government issued a notification numbered as S.O. 696 (E) dated 30.9.1977 which came into force with effect from 1.10.1977 and it, inter alia, repealed all notifications issued by different State Governments regulating the movement of rice and paddy. Mr. Jaiswal tried to persuade us that notwithstanding the aforesaid notification by the Central Government the earlier notifications issued by the State Government were in force. We are not in a position to accept his argument. The notifications issued by the State were made after obtaining concurrence of the Central Government and as a delegatee of the Central Government. The Central Government, therefore, was competent to withdraw or repeal any Order or regulation that was issued by the State Government in the capacity of a delegatee of the Central Government. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there was no law restricting the movement of paddy inside the State of Bihar on 27.4.81. 5. Then there is another question. The notice, (Annexure 2) under section 6A of the Act indicated that the petitioner no. 1 was taking the paddy with a view to sell it in black market. We asked. Mr. Jaiswal to show if there was any order fixing the price for paddy. He could not show us any such notification or order. We, therefore, are unable to see how it can be said that the petitioners wanted to sell the paddy in black market. 6. Mr. Jaiswal next contended that the first information report indicated that paddy was being taken in violation of clause 3(2) of the Foodgrains Dealers Licensing order. In reply to a question by us Mr. Jaiswal accepted that there was no such allegation in the first information report notice but that he was saying this on his own. We cannot take notice of arguments which are not supported by materials on record. In reply to a question by us Mr. Jaiswal accepted that there was no such allegation in the first information report notice but that he was saying this on his own. We cannot take notice of arguments which are not supported by materials on record. It is patent that an order of confiscation cannot be based on a fact which has not been mentioned in the notice. Therefore, for the purposes of this case everything which is not in, the notice is extraneous. Since we have held in favour of the petitioners that there was no law regulating the movement of paddy on 27.4.81 and also there was no law regulating the price of paddy, it is obvious that order of confiscation passed by the District Magistrate was illegal. The order as contained in Annexure 3, dated 13.8.81, is quashed and the application is allowed. The paddy in question should now be returned to the petitioners forthwith.