JUDGMENT For failure to get the requisite entry in the licence with regard to place of storage of goods, the petitioner was proceeded against under the M.P. Pulses and Edible Oil Seeds and Oil (Dealers) Licensing Order, 1977. It was found that 158.29 qtls. of gram was kept at a place other than that mentioned in the licence. The explanation given by the petitioner was that new storage godowns had since been constructed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, and these foodgrains were being stored therein. A further plea was also taken that requisite information regarding change of place for storage was given. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if such information was not given then this should have been taken as bona fide explanation. The above plea of the petitioner did not find favour with the original appellate authority. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that not only information was required to be given within 48 hours but necessary corrections should also have been got done in the licence. As this was not done, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and he was subjected to the penal consequences which include confiscation of the gram and also a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision given by the Supreme Court in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663 . In para 5 of the judgment, it was observed as under :- "Since the power of confiscation under S. 6 is very wide as a person violating the Control Orders is to be visited with serious consequences leading not only to the confiscation of the seized goods, packages or vessel or vehicle in which such essential commodity is found or is conveyed or carried, but is liable to· be prosecuted and penalised under S. 7 of the Act, it is inherent in it that those who are entrusted with responsibility to implement it should act with reasonableness, fairness and to promote the purpose and objective of the Act. Further, the goods seized are liable to be confiscated only if the Collector is satisfied about violation of the Control Orders. The language of the section and its setting indicate that every contravention cannot entail confiscation. That is why the section uses the word 'may'. Further, the goods seized are liable to be confiscated only if the Collector is satisfied about violation of the Control Orders. The language of the section and its setting indicate that every contravention cannot entail confiscation. That is why the section uses the word 'may'. A trader indulging in black marketing or selling adulterated goods etc. should not, in absence of any violation, be treated at par with technical violations such as failure to put up the price list etc. or even discrepancies in stock". Relying upon the decision given by the Supreme Court, it would be just and proper to remit the case to the Collector to redecide as to whether this was such a case where the extreme step was required to be taken or not. Petitioner to appear before the Collector on 3.4.1995, who would pass fresh order, in accordance with law taking note of decision given by the Supreme Court of India.