Judgment S.H.S.Abidi, J. 1. Petitioner, Amod Kumar Jaiswal has come to this court against the order dated the 28th of December, 1982 passed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in case No. 12 of 1982 under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and also against the order dated the 3rd of December, 1963 passed by the Food Commissioner, Bihar Patna confirming the order of the learned District Magistrate, in Confiscation Appeal No. 9 of 1983. The Food Commissioner was appointed as a Judicial authority by the State Government. 2. In brief, the case is that on 9-7-1982 the business premises of the petitioner was inspected wherefrom 220 quintals of coal were recovered and it was ascertained from the stock register and display board. The carbon copy of the cash memo showed that the petitioner was charging Rs. 19.13 Paise for 40 kgs. of coal whereas the fixed price was Rs. 18.50 paise It was also found that the petitioner had no licence as it has already been cancelled on the 13th April 1982 by the Sub-divisional Officer. 3. The petitioner said that he had no information about the cancellation of his licence, price of the coal at Rs. 18.50 Paise for kgs. and also about reduction of the price at Rs. 18.50 paise. The District Magistrate did not accept the contention of the petitioner though the learned A.P.P. has conceded that the information about the cancellation of the licence had not been served upon the petitioner. As regards the service of the notice about the re-fixation of the price of coal at Rs. 18.50 paise the learned District Magistrate held that the notice has been displayed on the notice board and so, the petitioner was expected to know about the same 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that because he had got no information about the cancellation of the licence, so, his prosecution for selling the coal without licence, is not maintainable. The contention appears to be correct as the learned A.P.P. has himself conceded that the cancellation order has not been served upon the petitioner. So, this charge for selling coal without licence, fails. 5. The contention appears to be correct as the learned A.P.P. has himself conceded that the cancellation order has not been served upon the petitioner. So, this charge for selling coal without licence, fails. 5. As regards the price of the coal, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sec.3 (5) of the E.C. Act which requires that :- (a) In the case of an order of general nature or effecting a class of persons notified in the Official Gazette : and (b) In the case of order directed to a specified individual be served on such individual- (i) by delivering or tendering it to that individual, or (ii) If it cannot be so delivered, or tendered, by affixing it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the premises in which that individual lives, and a written report thereof shall be prepared and witnessed by two persons living in the neighbourhood. Sec.3 (2) (C) under the same Act is in respect of controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold. Thus, form this, it is clear that any change in the price for purchasing or selling ought to have been brought into the notice of the dealer in the manner provided under Sec.3 (5) (b) as mentioned above. As regards the earlier price of Rs. 19.13 paise it appears, that there was direction of the District Magistrate which was ordered to be made available to the petitioner also as a dealer. But there is no service of notice in respect of reduction in the prices rather as said by the District Magistrate in his order that on the notice board the information about reduction of the prices is available which is according to law. Thus the petitioner has got no information about the reduction in the prices. It may be noted that the price was actually Rs. 18.50 paise whereas the price mentioned in the cash memo was Rs. 1913 paise, a meagre amount which shows that the petitioner has been implicated for the excess price which is few paise for 40 kgs of coal. 6 In the result, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and hence, this application is allowed.