P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant, who produced edible oil has filed this revision against the judgment of the appellate Authority Sessions Judge, Shajapur passed in Cri. Appeal No. 1 of 1982 on 3rd Sept. 1982, filed under section 6 (c) of the Essential Commodities Act, whereby he modified the order dated 23-11-80 passed by the learned Collector District Magistrate, Shajapur, confiscating five quintals of groundnut oil. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition may be stated, in brief, thus on 18-11-80 the Food Inspector inspected the premises of the applicant where he is manufacturing edible oil. At that time the Food Inspector found production of 15 quintals and 38 kgs of groundnut oil. During his inspection he also found that the petitioner, who is a producer of edible oil, was also directly selling oil to consumers and he has thus contravened the provisions of the M. P. Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils Dealers Licensing Order, 1977. ( 3 ) THE applicant being aggrieved filed an appeal under section 6 (c) of the Essential Commodities Act before the Appellate Authority which modified the order of the Collector regarding the confiscation of the total quantity and ordered confiscation of only five Quintals of oil. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order 1977 has been passed by the Central Government which applies to whole of India. According to the learned counsel under section 2 (j) of the said order producer is defined as follows: producer means a person carrying on the business of milling any of the pulses or expelling, extracting, manufacturing or refining any edible oil. (i) by buying pulses or edible oilseeds for being processed by himself and selling the finished products to a wholesaler or through a commission agent or (U) by doing any of the process of milling, expelling, extracting, manufacturing or refining on behalf of another; The learned counsel did not dispute this fact that the provisions of this Central Order are applicable to the case of the petitioner. However, he submitted that the State Government has also issued M. P. Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 which defines producer as follows: (i) producer means a person carrying on the business of milling any of the pulses or expelling or extracting or manufacturing or refining any edible oil. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that though under the Central Order according to the definition of producer the petitioner could not sell the edible oil i. e. ground nut oil to any private customer, there is no such bar in the M. P. Order as per its definition of producer. He also submitted that though the notice was given to the petitioner by the Collector under the M. P. Order, the ground violation therein was mentioned as provided by the Central Order. He, therefore, submitted that the notice issued by the Collector being not valid the entire proceedings deserves to be quashed as it has caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner. In the alternative the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the different provisions in the Central Order as also in the M. P. Order which define producer, even the confiscation of five quintals of edible oil is a harsh penalty. He, therefore, submitted that the same deserves to be reduced. ( 6 ) SO far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prejudged, in my opinion, has no force, because the learned counsel did not dispute this fact that the provisions of the Central Order were applicable to the case of the petitioner who as a producer under the said order was not entitled to sell the edible oil namely groundnut oil to a private customer as under that order he could sell it only to a wholesaler or through a commission agent. But he submitted that as the M. P. Order does not put such a restriction he cannot be said to have violated the provisions of the said order or the basis of which he could be dealt with under the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the said order. ( 7 ) AFTER considering the definition of Producer in the Central Order and the M. P. Order it no doubt appears that there is some anomaly. ( 7 ) AFTER considering the definition of Producer in the Central Order and the M. P. Order it no doubt appears that there is some anomaly. It is also true that when the notice was given to the petitioner under the M. P. Order, the learned Collector ought to have seen whether in the M. P. Order there is such a prohibition for a producer to sell edible oil to a private customer though it appears that in the said notice he has probably referred to the definition of producer as mentioned in the Central Order which has been made the basis of violation of the said order. The Essential Commodities Act being meant to provide, in the interest of the general public, for the control of production, supply and distribution in certain commodities, it is expected of the Authority concerned before issuing notice to go through the provisions of the different orders passed under the said Act so that the dealer gets a clear idea of what case he has to meet. In the present case the Collector, no doubt, could issue notice to the petitioner by referring to the Central Order alone. But he having issued notice under the M. P. Order he could not insert the provision of the Central Order for its violation. But to my mind this discrepancy has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner who ought not to have sold the edible oil to private consumers by violating the Central Order. The Appellate Authority has already modified the order of confiscation and, in my opinion, the discretion exercised by him does not call for any further interference as admittedly there is a violation of the Central Order. ( 8 ) IN the result this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .