Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bajaj for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Agrawal, G.A. 2. In this application the order of confiscation dated 17-11-1997 has been impugned by the petitioner on the ground that notice was bused to the petitioner about violation of the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 but the confiscation order shows that the Deputy Commissioner though C1.ccepted the show cause filed by the petitioner but has come to a finding there the petitioner has violated the provisions of Display Order. 3. From the statement made in the writ petition and the notice as also the impugned order it appears that the confiscating authority has not applied his mind to the fact that when there was allegation of violation of provision of Unification Order, the impugned order could not have been passed against him for violation of the provisions of Display Order. This is no denial of therefore that the seized articles as mentioned in Annexure are not covered by any of the provisions of Unification Order. More over, it is now well settled that the power of confiscation of essential commodity should be exercised reasonably and fairly inasmuch as every contravention of the Act does not entail the confiscation. 4. In the case of N. Nagendra Rao and Co. V/s. State of A.P.1, their Lordships observed that 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. 5. In this case in hand, though there was no allegation in the show cause" notice regarding violation of the provisions of Display Order the confiscating authority of its own has come to a finding that there was violation of Display order. 6. Recently in the case of Kailash Prasad Singh and another V/s. State of Bihar and others this Bench has held that small shortages or technical violation should not be treated at par with indulgence in black marketing or selling adulterated goods. The learned Single Judge has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Nagendra Rao (supra). 7. The learned Single Judge has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Nagendra Rao (supra). 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the learned confiscating authority has erred in law in exercise of his power by confiscating the seized article. However. Mr. Agrawal has submitted that the petitioner has moved this Court without availing the statutory remedy in appeal. Reasons assigned by the petitioner for not moving -in appeal has been stated in the writ petition. Moreover. I am satisfied that when order impugned is totally without jurisdiction provision of appeals will not be a bar for moving this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 8. In the result this application is allowed and the order dated 17-11-1997 is quashed. The authority is directed to release the seized articles forthwith.