JUDGMENT 1. - Identical questions of law and facts are involved in both these matters. We, therefore, propose to dispose them of finally by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these cases are that the District Supply Officer, Nagaur alongwith other officers of the Supply Department inspected the business premises of M/s. Nemi Chand & Brothers, Nagaur and M/s. Nemi Chand &Co., Nagaur on 20.01.1984 at 3.00 PM and 1.00 PM respectively. Both the firms are wholesale dealers holding licence under the provisions of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as `the Order of 1980') dealing in Sugar and other trade articles. At the time of inspection, the above firms were found in possession of 165 and 183 bags of sugar respectively. It was also found that each firm had purchased sugar from Ahmedabad and Charoli Sahakari Khand Udyog, Palaj (Guj.). Firm-M/s. Nemi Chand & Brothers was issued bill No. 414 dated 19.1.1984 and the second firm was issued bill NO. 6641 dated 18.1.1984. The ordered sugar was dispatched by the seller to the above firms. Each truck loaded with 120 bags of sugar had arrived and was found parked in the business premises of the above firms at the time of inspection. Octroi receipts for each consignment have also been produced as payment thereof was also made. The District Supply Officer added the quantity of sugar found in each truck to the stock of the above dealers as, according to him, the sugar had arrived from Ahmedabad and had to be deemed to be in possession of the above dealers. 3. The District Supply Officer was of the opinion that though the actual delivery of the sugar that was found loaded in the trucks had not been taken by the above dealers, still the dealers will be deemed to possess the sugar in ecess of the prescribed quantity of 250 bags of sugar in view of notification No. GSR/362 (E) Ess. Comm./sugar dated 14.7.1980. The District Supply Officer further found that the above dealer had not made entry of the sugar purchased from the above seller in the Stock Register, as required under the condition No. 3(b) of the Order of 1980. Comm./sugar dated 14.7.1980. The District Supply Officer further found that the above dealer had not made entry of the sugar purchased from the above seller in the Stock Register, as required under the condition No. 3(b) of the Order of 1980. The District Supply Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for confiscation of the sugar seized by the inspection party. 4. The dealers contested the above confiscation before the Collector, Nagaur who disposed of both the matters by a common order dated 23.4.1984. He affirmed the seizure and confiscation of sugar in both the cases made by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Collector, each dealer filed an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act before the State Government. The State Government by order dated 2.9.1988 dismissed both the appeals. M/s. Nemi Chand & Co., aggrieved by the above orders filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2856/89. M/s. Nemi Chand & Brothers filed a writ against the above orders of the Government but the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 13.9.1989. M/s. Nemi Chand & Bros, has, therefore, filed the above Special Appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the dealers as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the firms has contended that the question that fell for determination was whether the dealer of sugar was required under the Order of 1980 to make an entry in the Stock Register in respect of the sugar which was still in the pipe-line and the physical delivery of which had not been taken by the dealer. He submitted that the District Supply Officer while computing the stock of the dealers took into account 120 bags of sugar which were found loaded in the truck, standing outside the shop of the dealers. Since the physical possession of the commodity had not been taken by that time, the above quantity of sugar ought not to have been added to the stock of the dealers. In this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in Pravati Devi Nagliya v. State of Bihar & another, (1991 (1) EFR 185 . Since the physical possession of the commodity had not been taken by that time, the above quantity of sugar ought not to have been added to the stock of the dealers. In this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in Pravati Devi Nagliya v. State of Bihar & another, (1991 (1) EFR 185 . Regarding the order of confiscation, he has cited that it was a slight lapse of non-mentioning of the stock in the Register and hence confiscation ought not to have been ordered. Reliance in this connection has been placed by learned counsel on a decision of this Court in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1981 RLW 524 . 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the sugar purchased by each dealer was despatched by the seller and had arrived in the trucks which were found parked in the business premises of the dealers. The octroi duty was also paid and octroi receipt in each case was issued. Hence, even if the physical possession was not taken by the dealers, it must be deemed to be in their possession and, as per condition No. 3(b) of the licence made under the order of 1980 the dealer was under an obligation to have shown the purchase of the above sugar in his Stock Register. If the sugar found lying in the truck is added to the stock of the dealer, it would exceed the permissible limit of 250 bags of sugar and the dealers are liable to be proceeded against under Section 6-A of the Act. 8. We have considered the rival contentions. It is not in dispute that both the dealers were holding a licence under the Order of 1980. It is also not in dispute that the maximum permissible limit of stock was 250 bags of sugar. Both the dealers had purchased the sugar from M/s. Chrottar Sahakari Khand Udyog, Kela, Gujarat and two trucks-one for each dealer had arrived at Nagaur containing 120 bags each of sugar. At the time of inspection, both the trucks were found parked in the business premises of the dealers. We may refer to condition 3(b) of the licence held by the dealers under the Order of 1980, which provide : 3(a)......... At the time of inspection, both the trucks were found parked in the business premises of the dealers. We may refer to condition 3(b) of the licence held by the dealers under the Order of 1980, which provide : 3(a)......... (b) The licensee shall enter all the transactions held on telephone or through bitty or otherwise relating to purchase or sale of trade articles in the stock register. In case the purchased trade articles are not received physically by the licensee on the ate of entering into any transaction, a note shall be recorded in this behalf in the stock register." Hence, both the dealers shall be deemed to have purchased the above sugar and they were under an obligation to have shown the same in their Stock Register. By not mentioning the quantity of the purchased sugar in their Stock Register the dealers contravened the conditions of the licence and thereby committed an offence under Section 6-A of the Act. Hence, the authorities below did not commit any error in confiscating the sugar. The writ petition was correctly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 9. For the above reasons, we do not find any force in the appeal as well as the writ petition and both are hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******