Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner describes himself as the proprietor of Kharakiya Trading Company, at and P.O. Nirsa in the district of Gaya. He seeks to challenge the orders of confiscation of 120 bags of sugar. The confiscation order, at the first instance, was passed by the Dist. Magistrate, Gaya on 18.10.1989/19.10.1989 Confiscation Misc. Case No. 40/1988. The appeal preferred against that order was rejected by the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar by order dated 12.3.1993 (Annexure 1) passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 113 of 1989. It is these two orders which come under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner further seeks a direction for refund of the sale price of the sugar which was sold @ Rs. 483.00 per bag during the pendency of the confiscation proceeding. 2. According to the petitioners case, he had purchased 120 bags of sugar from Awadh Sugar Mills, Hargawan, Sitapur (U.P). For transporation to Dhanbad, the purchased sugar was loaded on truck bearing registration No. UPX 4592. As some mechanical defects developed in the truck on way to Dhanbad, the sugar had to be transferred to another truck bearing registration No. BRB 9527. On 5.1.1986 while truck No. BRB 9527 was on way to Dhanbad, it was seized along with the sugar loaded on it at village Gopalpur under Sherghati police station and a confiscation proceeding was initiated in which the impugned orders were passed directing for the confiscation of the seized sugar. 3. According to the counter affidavit filed in this case the truck bearing registration No. BRB 9527 was apprehended at Gopalpur check post near Sherghati. At that time there were four persons in the truck three of whom succeeded in making good their escape. One person, namely, Arvind Kumar who stated that he was the Munshi of Manohar Ram, son of Prayag Ram of Mohalla Kathokar Talab, Gaya. According to the statement of the aforesaid Arvind Kumar, the driver of the truck, Md. Bashir Shah, Manohar Ram and Bishu Prasad were the persons who managed to escape. Arvind Kumar further stated before the police that the sugar was purchased at Sasaram at a price of Rs. 70,080.00 and the three purchasers were together at the time of the transaction. It is further alleged that according to Arvind Kumar the sugar in question was to be sold in "black market" at Dhanbad. 4. Arvind Kumar further stated before the police that the sugar was purchased at Sasaram at a price of Rs. 70,080.00 and the three purchasers were together at the time of the transaction. It is further alleged that according to Arvind Kumar the sugar in question was to be sold in "black market" at Dhanbad. 4. The Dist. Magistrate, Gaya disbelieved the case of the petitioner that the sugar was purchased in Sitapur (U.P.) and it had to be re-loaded in truck bearing registration No. BRB 9527 as the first truck had developed some mechanical snags. He came to the inference that on way to Dhanbad from Sitapur, the sugar in question was resold at Sasaram on the G.T. Road by the proprietor of Kharakiya Trading Company to M/s. Manohar Ram whose proprietor was in the truck when it was seized and he somehow managed to escape. He further observed that the sugar was intended to be sold in the black market at Dhanbad. According to the learned Collector, this was a clear case of black marketing being committed by the proprietor of Kharakiya Trading Company, Nirsa (Dhanbad) and the five purchasers of Gaya were carrying those 120 bags of sugar in a clandestine manner. In appeal the Secretary, Food agreed with the observations and findings recorded by the learned Collector. 5. Unfortunately, however, neither the order passed by the Collector nor the one passed by the secretary, Food mentions any statutory provision which could be said to have been violated in carrying the sugar in the truck in question. The counter affidavit filed in this case on behalf of respondent No. 3 also does not mention any statutory provision for the violation of which the sugar could be lawfully confiscated. It is not even stated either in the orders passed by the Collector and the Secretary Food or in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 that there was any restriction on the movement of sugar at the material time. There is no evidence that at the material time the price of sugar had been statutorily fixed by the Government. In the absence of any restriction on the movement of sugar, the mere fact that the sugar was being transported on a truck different from the one shown in the papers issued by the seller mill would not constitute any offence. In the absence of any restriction on the movement of sugar, the mere fact that the sugar was being transported on a truck different from the one shown in the papers issued by the seller mill would not constitute any offence. Similarly in the absence of any evidence of a statutorily fixed price, there can be no allegation of any intention to sell the sugar in black market. See Salekh Chand V/s. State of U.P. and Pritamial Yadav V/s. State of Bihar 1982 PUR 304. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be held that the confiscation proceeding itself was without any jurisdiction and the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 are set aside and the District Magistrate, Gaya is directed to refund the sale price of the 120 bags of sugar to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.