JUDGMENT Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. The petitioners invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the confiscation proceedit1gs initiated by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector (respondent no. 2) vide Confiscation Case no. 3 of 1992 including the order dated 29.2.92 passed by the Collector for sale of food-grains and Pulses seized form the business premises of petitioner no. 2. 2. The facts of the case lie within a short compass. Petitioner no. 1 is an agriculturist and petitioner no. 2 a wholesale licence dealer in food grains carrying on business in Khagaria town in the name and style of M/s. Deepak Kumar and Company. On 4.1.92 the Supply Inspector (respondent no. 3) inspected the business premises of petitioner no. 2 and in course of physical verification of the stock found 16 bags of maize of the total quantity of 15 quintals and 26 kilograms excess in stock. On that basis the entire stock of maize, paddy and Matar and Kurthi were seized vide seizure list, copy of which is Annexure-1. On the basis of the seizure made an F.I.R. copy of which is Annexure-2 was lodged for violation of the licence granted under the Unification Order. Subsequently a confiscation proceeding u/s. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was started and the petitioners were directed to show cause. The said show cause was not found satisfactory by the Collector by order dated 24.2.92 copy of which is Annexure-4 which 29.2.92 is impugned in this writ application. 3. Sri Nawal Kishore Agrawal learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order of confiscation was only in respect of maize seized and not in respect of other articles as they had already been released in favour of the petitioners. If the allegations made are believed only 15 quintals and 36 kilograms of maize was found in excess of the stock. It was argued that even according to Form-C of the Bihar Trade Articles (licences Unification) Order, 1984 petitioner no. 2 who was a wholesale licence dealer was required to maintain a stock register of daily account and was required to mention the opening stock on each day. It was argued that even according to Form-C of the Bihar Trade Articles (licences Unification) Order, 1984 petitioner no. 2 who was a wholesale licence dealer was required to maintain a stock register of daily account and was required to mention the opening stock on each day. He pointed out that it is not practical or feasible for any wholesale dealer to keep the accounts up-to-date during the hours of business as the opening stock on each day was likely to vary by sale of articles in course of the day or by arrival of similar articles in course of the business. Another argument advanced is that the excess of stock detected was so small in quantity that no mens rea could be attributed to the petitioners and the confiscation proceeding was liable to be quashed on that ground alone. 4. Sri Ram Priyasharan Singh learned counsel appearing for the State argued that on account of the shortage detected in course of inspection the Collector was competent in law to start the confiscation proceeding and confiscate the stock of maize and no legal infirmity could be found in the said order. No counter affidavit has, however, been filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that in the facts and circumstances of the case no mens rea could be attributed to the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Apex court in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of A.P. ( AIR 1994 SC 2663 ). Their Lordships were dealing with the power of confiscation under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and it was observed in course of the judgment that the language of the section and its setting indicate that every contravention which is punishable u/s. 7 of the Act need not entail confiscation. It was emphasised that those who are entrusted with the responsibility to implement the Act must act with reasonableness, fairness and to promote the purpose and the objective of the Act and "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". 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". Another decision relied upon by the petitioners is a Division Bench judgment of this court in S. Poddar @ Satyanarain Poddar vs. State of Bihar and others [1995 (1) All Patna Law Reports 426 : 1995(2) PLJR 278]. It appears that the order taking cognizance in a case u/s. 7 of the E.C. Act was quashed as no mens rea for contravention of the instructions could be inferred. 5. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that there was no allegation of black-marketing and the small discrepancy in stock was at best a technical violation not entailing confiscation. On the facts of this case petitioner no. 2 was admittedly a wholesale licence dealer of food grains and the quantity of Maize which was found in excess of the stock was only 15 quintals and 36 kilograms. As already observed earlier the wholesale dealer was only required to show the opening stock of each day and small excess as in the present case can be a result of new arrival, a possibility which appears very likely in the present case. In other words there appears complete absence of any mens rea on the part of the wholesale dealer-petitioner no. 2 in so far the small excess of stock of maize was detected in course of inspection. The Collector (respondent no. 2) in the impugned order (Annexure-4) does not appear to have appreciated all these aspects of the case and to have disposed of the confiscation proceeding against the petitioners after finding the show cause filed as unsatisfactory. Thus the confiscation proceeding including the impugned order (Annexure-4) cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 6. In the result this writ application is allowed.