JUDGMENT This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of following facts. The petitioner was proceeded against under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. The violations for which action was sought to be taken were as under : (i) Possession of 28 begs of groundnut (ii) One bag of gram; and (iii) 92 bags of Jawar. The plea taken by the petitioner was that part of the commodities which were subject matter of alleged violation did not belong to him. A plea was also taken by him that he was an agriculturist being owner of 64 bighas of land. It was sought to be suggested that the commodities which were lying with him represented produce from the land owned by him. Contentions raised on behalf the petitioner were rejected on the ground that the identity of persons who were said to be owners of the produce were not disclosed. The fact that these persons did not put in appearance before the authorities was also taken note of. On the basis of the above, the plea taken by the petitioner was rejected. Against this, an appeal was preferred. This was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now submitted, that groundnut is not a commodity which falls within the purview of schedule I of the order referred to above and therefore no order could be passed with regard to groundnut. So far as plea is concerned, this appears to be correct. The terms foodgrain has been defined in clause 2 (b) of the Order. Only those commodities which fall within Schedule I to the order would fall within the definition of the term foodgrains. The schedule makes mention of 12 items and groundnut is not one of them. As such, no order could be passed by the original authority with regard to this commodity. The learned counsel appearing for the State has, however, stated that groundnut is definitely covered by another Order namely Madhya Pradesh Rules, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Storage Control Order, 1977. The limit prescribed was 30 quintals. The petitioner was keeping groundnut less than this. As such this argument does not help the State. The panchanama at the time of seizure, indicates that petitioner was in possession of 6 quintals 50 kgs of Oil seeds. As such, violation of the above order is not made out. The limit prescribed was 30 quintals. The petitioner was keeping groundnut less than this. As such this argument does not help the State. The panchanama at the time of seizure, indicates that petitioner was in possession of 6 quintals 50 kgs of Oil seeds. As such, violation of the above order is not made out. Therefore, this contention is upheld. So far as the other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the licensing authority has given cogent reasons and disbelieved the petitioners contentions that the foodgrains belonged to third persons. The plea regarding the petitioner being a cultivator and that the produce was from his land was rightly negatived. The petitioner has now argued that only that much of commodity which was in excess of the prescribed limit can be seized by the respondent authorities, For this reliance is placed on a decision given by this Court in M/s. Shah Gattu Lal Rakhan Jain v. The State of M.P. & others. (M.P. No. 383/87) decided on 24.11.94. It was observed as under :- "The proper construction of Rule 3 shall be that the Collector will have the jurisdiction to confiscate the oil seeds beyond the stock limit as the incumbent is entitled to keep the stock below the limit prescribed under Rule 3. If the petitioner had not renewed the licence and kept the stock below the limit prescribed, then perhaps he would not have been prosecuted for that matter, but he has been prosecuted because he was found in possession of the oil seeds more than the stock limits fixed and as such, the offence shall be committed for non-renewal of the licences for the period during which he was in possession of the goods beyond the prescribed limit and the Collector can legitimately confiscate the oil seeds which were in possession of the petitioner, more than the stock limit fixed under Rule 3 but he has ordered confiscation of the entire goods which is not correct. Therefore, to this extent, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be justified and I hold that the State is entitled to confiscate the oil seeds, more than the stock limit fixed under Rule 3 and for the rest of the stock, the incumbent is entitled to be returned, and in case goods confiscated have been auctioned, he will be entitled to the sale proceed thereof to that extent." There is merit in this contention. It is held that the foodgrains which were in excess of the prescribed limit can be seized. This petition is allowed to the limited extent indicated above.