ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. Some events which took place within a short span of four months ultimately resulting in action being initiated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and and Madhya Pradesh (Licensing & Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 Have led to the filing of this petition. It is alleged that respondent no. I was interested in collecting funds for running an institution by the name of Rogi Kalyan Samiti. The president of the society is no doubt the Collector of the District but the question is as to whether this fact or alone is enough to conclude that whatever action has been taken against the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is because of initial reluctance in the matter of making donations or this factor has marely been connected to seek protection to some activities which may or may not be covered by the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. Fact in brief be noticed. The petitioner concern was granted a licence for carrying on business for milling and processing of agricultural produce. The licence is dated 11.5.1993 Copy of this has been placed on the record as annexure. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 is an associate company of Bhaskar Group and this group publishes a news paper by the name of Dainik Bhaskar' from various places in the State of Madhya Pradesh and one place in State of Uttar Pradesh also. It is stated that this news paper happened to print a news item in its publication dated 9.10.1995. It is indicated that about 10 lacs of rupees have been collected for respondents no. 6 institution. On 11. 10 1995 another news item was published. In this item it was indicated that there is some dispute in the matter of collecting money for respondents no. 6 institution. It is stated that on 11.10.1995 the petitioner company was also approached to make a donation of Rs. 2 lacs. On there being, a flat no, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The various proceedings initiated be noticed. (i) On 11.10.1995 all the official respondents are said to have reached the premises of the company. They wanted to enter the premises. As the identity of the person who wanted to enter the factory premises was not known to the security officer he asked them to be identified. The various proceedings initiated be noticed. (i) On 11.10.1995 all the official respondents are said to have reached the premises of the company. They wanted to enter the premises. As the identity of the person who wanted to enter the factory premises was not known to the security officer he asked them to be identified. It is stated that under official threat the respondents entered the factory premises: the werehouse was checked, the almirah where records were kept was got opened by breaking the locks, the records were looked into a panchnama is said to have been prepared on this very day. (ii) the copy of he panchnama is annexure P-5; (iii) that approximate price of the goods was fixed. These were given on supurdgi to the petitioner concern. The value of these goods is said to be Rs. 2,65. 34, 695- the supurdginama is in favour of Mohinder Kumar Garg: (iv) that on 12. 10. 1995 it is alleged that Mohinder Garg was called to the residence of respondent no. 1 The respondent threatened him that in case donation of Rs. 5 lacs is not made to the respondent no. 6 institution then there can be grave conseuqences. A cheque bearing 274486 drawn on Orential Bank of Commerce for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs is said to have been prepared and handed over. This cheque was in favour of respondent no. 6 institution; 3. That the events which took place after 12.10.1995 may also be noticed, there was news item regarding the search and seizure vis-a-vis the petitioner concern in other news papers. It was indicated that the concern was respondents for evading legal dues worth several crores. Reference is made to a news item published in Nai Duniya published on 14.10.1995. In this news item the fact that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was given by the petitioner concern is duly recited. 4. That on 16. 10. 1995 a notice was issued to the petitioner asking it to show cause as to why the licence issued in his favour be not cancelled. 5. It is against the above action of the respondent, the present petition has been filed. 6. The respondents have filed the return. It is suggested that the suggestion of the petitioner that all action was taken because of extraneous consideration is denied. 5. It is against the above action of the respondent, the present petition has been filed. 6. The respondents have filed the return. It is suggested that the suggestion of the petitioner that all action was taken because of extraneous consideration is denied. It is stated that the premises of the petitioner concern were sought to be inspected earlier also. An attempt was made on 27.7.1995. The inspector of Weights and Measure Department wanted to inspect the weighing instruments. This was not permitted. Proceedings in this regard were initiated on 30th October, 1995. It is also alleged that earlier Secretary of the Mandi Samiti also issued notice on 2.9.1995. It is however, admitted that the premises were inspected on 11.10.1995. Panchnama was prepared. So far as receipt of cheque amounting to Rs. 5 lacs is concerned, it is stated that the Collector Shivpuri, has got nothing to do with the cheque in question. This cheque was issued in favour of respondent no. 6. The receipt is dated 13.10.1995. It is suggested that action has been taken against the petitioner concern within the parameters of law and on account of breach of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and the Control Order framed thereunder. 7. It be seen that till today no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. Proceedings for violation of Essential Commodities Act and the Control Orders framed thereunder has been taken. It be seen that the Supreme Court of India in the case reoported as N. Nagendra Rao & Co. V. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC. 2003, observed that the powers which are vested with the authorities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are to be exercised with reasonableness, fairness and with a view to promote the purpose and objective of the Act. The person against whom these proceedings are taken is always visited with serious consequences. A distinction has to be made between a trader indulging in black marketing or selling adulterated goods and a person who is committed technical breach of the Act and the Rules. A dealer who fails to maintain the price list or even where there is discrepancy in stock is not to be equated with a person or a trader indulging in black marketing. In the present case a show cause notice has been issued. A dealer who fails to maintain the price list or even where there is discrepancy in stock is not to be equated with a person or a trader indulging in black marketing. In the present case a show cause notice has been issued. Copy of this is annexure P-14, This has been issued for breach of clause 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Sdcheuled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Restirction of Hoarding) Order, 1991. Ultimately there may only be such omissions which have been characterised as techinical omissions by the Supreme Court in the case reported as N. Nagendra Rao's Case (supra). 8. So far as violation of provisions contained in the Control Order referred to above is concerned, the law would take its own course. The petitioner, if found guilty, can be dealt with in accordance with law. However, this is not the end. Two things are still required to be gone into. These are: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents no. 1 who is in contol of respondents No. 6 authority i.e. Collector. Shivpuri should have accepted the donation; (ii) Whether the donation was given to ward off the ill-affects of the raid or the raid was conducted becuase of the initial reluctance to make the donation ? 9. With a view to determine these question events may again be re-capitulated in chronological order: 9.10. 1995: News regarding forcible collection is made in Dainik Bhaskar. 11.10.1995.: Again similar news item is published in Dainik Bhaskar. 11.10.1995.: Premises of the petitioner concern are subjected to search seizure. 12.10.1995: Donation of 5 lakhs is made to respondent no. 6. This institution is under the control of Collector, Shivpuri. 10. From the above events it may be possible to establish some link between the search & seizure and the donation. It is possible that the search was made becuase of the initial reluctance of the petitioner to make donation and on account of the stand taken by the news paper, namely, Dainik Bhaskar on 9th of October, 1995 and 11th of October 1995. It is also possible that donation was made with a view of soften the stand of the Collector. If above factors are present then the question would arise as to whether the payment of Rs. 5 lakhs was in fact donation. It is also possible that donation was made with a view of soften the stand of the Collector. If above factors are present then the question would arise as to whether the payment of Rs. 5 lakhs was in fact donation. It be seen that in the present case no consideration has flown from respondent no. 6 in favour of the petitioner concern. The petitioner company can thus urge that this is transaction which is void abinitio. Had the donation been made voluntarily then the petitioner would not have turned around and taken a complete summersault. No doubt in the affidavit filed by the official respondent they have taken a stand that no undue pressure was exercised on petitioners, this is again a question of fact. 11. Question arises to what is donation. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in the Corpus Juris Secondum. It would be apt to notice the term as so defined in volume 2 X page 53 of above compilation :It reads as under : Donation. The term implies absence of consideration, and transfer of title and control without power of revocation; and has been defined as an act by which the owner of a thing voluntarily transfers the title and possession of the same from himself to another without any consideration a gift or grant in gratuity; gift gratuitous transfer of property from one to another, or voluntary alienation of property. Also that which is given or bestowed, and in a particular connection, a gratuitous present of the public funds, authorised by an act passed solely in the exercise of gratitude and charity, as distinguished from a payment authorised in recognition of a moral obligation and founded upon enquity and justice. 12. Thus, a payment which is not voluntary would not be donation. Transfer of a site for an office building by a city to the State in consideration of benefits to be received therefrom by the city, was held to not a donation in Green v. Thomas 175 N.E. 226, 228.37 Ohio App. 489. This unless and until it is shown, the act of making payment was voluntary, it cannot be said that the petitioner intended to make the donation. If a donation which was given with a view to ward off the ill-affects of the raid then it is not donation. 489. This unless and until it is shown, the act of making payment was voluntary, it cannot be said that the petitioner intended to make the donation. If a donation which was given with a view to ward off the ill-affects of the raid then it is not donation. In any case, the Collector should not have accepted the amount in question and that also a day after the search and seizure. Public policy in its wisdom considers it of greater consequence that the system of public administration should be kept clear and pure and its smooth flow should not be permitted to be rippled by payments which are sometimes described as donations. If an ordinary citizen is to gather an impression that a particular payment is in fact not a donation but has been made with an ulterior motive, it definitely affects the purity of public administration. Public interest docs require that there should been some restraint in the matter of accepting the payment of the type which the petitioners has made. The events in this case do to some estein indicate that it was not a voluntary act but it was made out of some compulsion. The compulsion could be: (i) the petitioner wanted that its premises should not be subjected to search and seizure: (ii) the petitioner may also be wanting that no further action be taken after the intial search and seizure. 13. In any case, as indicated above, the close proximity between the publication dated 9th of October and 11th of October, 1995 and the consequent raid and donation made after a day indicants that the thing as have not happened in the manner in which they are sought to be projected by the petitioner or the respondents. 14. This is prima facie conclusion. With a view to record a positive finding, it would be necessary for the State to examine in detail this aspect of the matter. I am, accordingly of the view: (i) that so far as the question whether the petitioner's guilty of any breach of any Control Order or not would be examined and determined under the aforementioned Control Order: (ii) The question as to whether the donation was voluntary or not is again a matter which should be examined. Let this be done at State level. Let this be done at State level. (iii) The State should also lay guidelines in the matter of accepting donation of the type which is in dispute such donations should not be accepted and this is more so when some judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings have been taken agianst a particular person or a concern. By way of illustration, a question can be posed; would it be apto to accept donation from a person who is involved in a matter arising under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The purpose of donation may be laudable but then this would definitely be against public policy. As indicated above, the State Administration should lay guidelines in this, regard. (iv) In the present case, as there appears to be some nexus between search and seizure and the donation and as Collector, Shivpuri is the person who is to conduct further proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act and the Control Order framed under it and as he is also the administrative head of respondent no. 6 as the question regarding acceptance of donation is to be examined in the manner indicated in paras (ii) and (iii) above, it would be apt if Collector, Shivpuri does not proceed further in the matter. As such, the State Government would issue requisite notification in terms of clause 2 0) of the Control Order referred to above and the matter be left to be taken up for further action by some other Officer. It is made absolutely clear that no aspersion whatsoever is being made against the Collector, who conducted the search and seizure. This course has been adopted with a view to instill confidence in the system of administration of jusitce. It is needless to mention that matter which are decided under the Essential Commodities Act are definitely quasi-judicial in nature, (v) The amount of Rs. 5 lakhs which the petitioner has given to respondent no. 6 be returned "to the petitioner. The petitioner would however furnish security for its return, in case the authority going to examine the issues at Sr. No. (ii) and (iii) comes to the conclusion that this donation was made voluntary. (vi) In the fitness of thing as the donation has been made to an institution which is rendering social service, the petitioner should show its magnanimity and let the amount remain with the institution in question. No. (ii) and (iii) comes to the conclusion that this donation was made voluntary. (vi) In the fitness of thing as the donation has been made to an institution which is rendering social service, the petitioner should show its magnanimity and let the amount remain with the institution in question. This is, however, a matter on which the petitioner is to show its concern. This petition is disposed of accordingly.