Judgment 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice issued by the Collector, Chaibasa, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why seized commodities should not be confiscated under Sec.6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, in the circumstances noted below. 2. It appears that the business premises of the petitioner was inspected on 12-11-1987. The shop was found closed and lock was broken open and there after inspection was done and the following articles were found in the godown. Khesari Dal 5 bags of 5 quintals urad Dal 4 bags of 3 quintals. Chana Dal 9 bags of 9 quintals the above articles were seized and when demanded register, cash memos, licence were not produced which is said to be of violation of the provisions of the bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stock) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred as the "display Order") and therefore, a notice of show cause was issued for confiscating the aforesaid articles. It was submitted that notice is apparently in violation of any provisions of Display Order, 1977 as the petitioner is required to display the stock position before commencement of the business. In this case, admittedly, the shop was closed, lock was opened, nobody was present and therefore the question of showing the register on demand, in the circumstances admitted in the notice itself and also in the First Information Report, do not arise. There is no question of showing those registers to anybody because the licensee or his servant were not present and therfore there was none to show or to produce those relevant register. In the First Information Report it is also written that at the time of inspection inspite of search, the petitioner did not turned up and therefore lock of shop was opened in presence of Executive Magistrate and search was made. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that the traders had fled away downing their shutters when the raiding party has arrived for the purpose of inspection. This averment appears to be an attempt on the part of the prosecution to make improvement in the case itself because whether the petitioner or his servant or anybody fled away from the shop has neither been mentioned in the show cause notice (Annexure-2)or in the First Information Report. This averment appears to be an attempt on the part of the prosecution to make improvement in the case itself because whether the petitioner or his servant or anybody fled away from the shop has neither been mentioned in the show cause notice (Annexure-2)or in the First Information Report. Under such circumstances this improvement made in the counter affidavit cannot be taken notice of. In this connection reliance has been placed on the case reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 in which it was held that "when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Therefore, the improvement which has been attempted to be made by the State cannot be looked into at this stage after admission and the matter has to be thrased out on the basis of the notice issued and the first information, itself. 4. In clause 3 of the Display Order, the petitioner is required to display the stock position before commencement of his busines on any day at a conspicuous place near the entrance of his business premises. In this cass, admittedly, the shop was closed and therefore the business of the petitioner had not commenced and as such it was not required to make display of stock position when the shop was closed. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had not displayed the stock position which under the circumstances was not required to be done by him under this Display Order. The production of demand register, cashmemos, etc. , could not have bsen done as the shop was closed and none was present and entry in the shop was effected by breaking open the lock. Nowhere it is stated in the First Information Report lodged by the Supply Inspector on 12-11-1987 that any person was present in the shop from whom he demanded the relevant register and ha had failed to produce it. The notice (Annexure-2) does not say that any person was present from whom the stock register, etc. were demanded and there was none production. The notice (Annexure-2) does not say that any person was present from whom the stock register, etc. were demanded and there was none production. In this view of the admitted allegation, the question of display, production of stock register, cash memos, licence docs not arise at all and this could not have been done by the petitioner in his absence. 5. In the circumstances, on the basis of the fact stated above, it appears that starting of the Revenue Misc. Case No.37/87-88 under which the notice was issued appears to be without jurisdiction as no violation appears to have been committed of any provisions. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of this court passed in Cr. W. J. C. No.207/87 (R) in which under similar circumstances, notice was quashed. In that case it was held that if notice is issued on the basis of non-existent fact that cannot confer jurisdiction for issuing such notice. Similar is the position here. In this case also there is lack of jurisdiction for issuing of such notice and in view of this fact, there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Display Order. 7. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order for starting the confiscation proceeding under Sec.6-A of the Essential Commodities act as also the seizure are quashed. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of security. Application allowed.