J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) ). Rule. Mr. Bhatt learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for the respondents and waives service of Rule. On a joint request made by the learned Advocates of the parties petition is finally heard today. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Supply officer on 24-12-1991 exercising powers under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (-the Act for short) and also the order passed in appeal by respondent No. 2 on 22. 2. 1994. ( 3 ) ). The District Supply Officer visited the place of business of the petitioner. The petitioner is a trader carrying on business of sale and purchase of foodgrains and having a licence issued under the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Control and Stock Declaration) Rules 1991 Irregularities were found during the course of visit of the District Supply Officer. On the basis of the said irregularities a show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the entire quantity of foodgrains seized should not be confiscated to the State for the alleged irregularities. According to the respondents the following irregularities were found : ( 4 ) ). Opening stock for grain is 4500 kgs. Actual stock is 2697 kgs. Thus decidit (sic.) of 1807. (2) Stock of Til is found 2520 kgs. to be in excess. (3) 950 kgs. of maize is found excess. (4) 8200 kgs. of wheat is found in excess. Thus accounts are not properly maintained. Breach of condition No. 4/1 of licence and of Section 23 of the Gujarat Essential Articles Licensing (Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 is committed. (ii) Outward gate book (truck Bhada chitthi) under wholesale licence and bill book does not have printed number but it is hand written : Thus there is breach of Section 24/1-2 of Gujarat Essential Articles Licensing (Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 and breach of Governments mendatory instructions. ( 5 ) ). It has been contended that the order of the district supply officer and confirmed by respondent No. 2 is invalid and illegal stating that there is non application of mind on the point as to whether there was a fit case for confiscation of the entire quantity of foodgrains seized from the premises of the petitioner by the respondents. It has been contended that the order of the district supply officer and confirmed by respondent No. 2 is invalid and illegal stating that there is non application of mind on the point as to whether there was a fit case for confiscation of the entire quantity of foodgrains seized from the premises of the petitioner by the respondents. ( 6 ) ). Having examined the facts and circumstances and the impugned order it appears that the respondent authority has not applied mind addressing itself to the question as to whether the entire quantity of foodgrains was liable to be confiscated. Mere finding or holding that some irregularities are practised itself would not be sufficient ground for confiscation of the entire quantity of foodgrains which came to be seized. It is settled proposition of law that it is incumbent upon the authority to consider the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the irregularities or discrepancies committed by the trader or businessman in the provisions of the Act. Nothing has been successfully shown from the record which would go to show that the appellate authority as such had considered this aspect. It is for the authority to decide in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case as to whether there is a fit case to exercise powers for confiscation in respect of the entire or part of it. This aspect is not shown to be in focus before the impugned order of confiscation of the entire quantity came to be passed with the result that the impugned order passed by the district supply officer and confirmed by respondent No. 2 is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 7 ) ). In view of the facts and circumstances the matter is required to be remitted beck to the district supply officer with a direction to consider afresh and decide as to whether there is a fit case for exercise of powers to confiscate the entire quantity or part of it. Therefore the matter is remanded to the district supply officer with a direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The impugned orders are set aside to the extent of confiscating the entire quantity of foodgrains seized from the petitioner. Therefore the matter is remanded to the district supply officer with a direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The impugned orders are set aside to the extent of confiscating the entire quantity of foodgrains seized from the petitioner. It is clarified that the district supply officer is directed to decide as to whether there is a fit case of confiscation of the entire quantity or part of it after hearing the parties in accordance with law. He shall complete this exercise as expenditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. While remanding the matter the parties are directed to maintain statusquo as on today with regard to the aforesaid quantity of foodgrains. Rule discharged. .