Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the seizure of the trade articles, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, as also the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi, in Confiscation case No. 27/R-28 of 1987-88, as contained in Annexure-11, whereby and whereunder, rice, wheat, edible oil and Rahar dal, which were seized by Respondent No. 3, have been ordered to be confiscated, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. It appears that godown-cum-shop of the petitioner was searched on 5-6-1987 at about 11 A.M. and wheat, rice, edible oil and Rahar dal were seized through seizure list, Annexure-1 and thereafter confiscation case under Section 6-A of the E. C. Act was started against the petitioner. Show cause notice was issued and the petitioner had also filed his show cause and ultimately, the order of the Dy. Commissioner, was passed as contained in Annexure-11, confiscating the trade articles seized from the godown-cum-shop of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that wheat was not seized from the godown-cum-shop of the petitioner and as such the order suffers from the judicial application of mind. It was ilso pointed out that at that time there was no storage limit fixed for rice and as such the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Orders 1984, had no application, sofar the rice is concerned. Therefore, it was submitted that the confiscation order passed under Section 6-A of the Act is without jurisdiction. 4. Mrs. M. M. Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has conceded that at that time there was no storage limit fixed for the rice. It was also conceded that wheat was not seized from the godown-cum-shop of the petitioner. 5. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant law, in my opinion, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are fit to be accepted. 6. It is the admitted position in this case, that wheat and rice were withdrawn from the storage limit by a Notification being GSR 57, dated 10th November, 1986 and again the storage limit was reintroduced by another Notification being GSR No. 24, dated 21st November, 1987. 6. It is the admitted position in this case, that wheat and rice were withdrawn from the storage limit by a Notification being GSR 57, dated 10th November, 1986 and again the storage limit was reintroduced by another Notification being GSR No. 24, dated 21st November, 1987. Therefore, when there was no storage limit fixed for rice at the relevant time, the question of application of the Unification orders does not apply in this case which in substance means that the rice was a free sale commodity at the relevant time without there being any restriction put by the State. In this view of the matter, the confiscation proceeding started in respect of the rice and consequently the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-11 must be held to be without jurisdiction, and it is liable to be quashed. 7. The argument that the Wheat was not seized from the godown-cum-shop of the petitioner is also supported by the seizure list which is also concealed by the learned counsel for the State. The seizure list does not indicate that any quantity of wheat was seized from the godown-cum-shop of the petitioner. Even if any quantity of wheat was seized it would have must with the same fate as that of the rice, but so far the wheat is concerned, the question of confiscation does not arise as no quantity of wheat was seized from the *3session of the petitioner, which is also corroboration and established by the seizure list, Annexure-1. Therefore, it allows that the confiscation proceeding started in respect of wheat and the order passed in respect thereof, was without application of mind and without considering the actual facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It was lastly argued that it is the admitted position that constitution of the appellate forum has been held to be valid and, therefore, when an alternative forum is available, the petitioner should approach the appellate forum for getting appropriate relief. 9. It appears that this writ application was admitted on 26-10-1987 and it was filed on 20-10-1987. At that time no ruling of the Court had come declaring the validity of the appellate forum. 9. It appears that this writ application was admitted on 26-10-1987 and it was filed on 20-10-1987. At that time no ruling of the Court had come declaring the validity of the appellate forum. Even if alternative forum is available, in view of the fact that this application was admitted more than three years back and useful purpose will be served by asking the petitioner to approach the appellate forum, after the lapse of more than three years, when I find that there is apparent illegality on the face of the record, in passing the impugned order, as discussed above. The question of alternative forum should have been taken at the threshhold when the writ application was admitted and at this stage it will not be proper to ask the petitioner to approach the appellate forum, after the lapse of more than three years. 10. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this writ application is allowed and the seizure list as contained in Annexure-1 as also the order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition are hereby quashed.