JUDGMENT By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari of quashing the order dated 11.3.98 vide Annexure P-1 and dated 12.12.97 vide Annexure P-4. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is that proprietor of M/s Agrawal Trading Company, Raj-Mahal Parisar Jagdalpur. The said firm was engaged in carrying on the business of food-grains, sugar, pulses. edible-oil, edible-oil seeds etc. He was issued a licence, to carryon the aforesaid business, bearing No. 247/91 by Collector & Licensing Authority Bastar. Jagdalpur under the M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 which was to remain valid till 31.12.2000. At the time of inspection the Assistant Food Officer and Food Inspectors Jagdalpur found certain deficiency in the available stock of goods in the shop. Certain goods were seized from the son of the petitioner who was present at the time of seizure. The Licensing Authority proceeded against him under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and by order dated 30.9.97 passed in Case No. 34/C-149(2) 95-96 directed the confiscation of the seized goods in favour of the State. He also directed forfeiture of the entire amount of security of Rs. 2,000/- deposited towards licence fee. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioner preferred an appeal under the provisions contained in section 6C of the-Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to the State Government. After appeal was preferred the respondent No. 1 through its functionaries communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 12.12.97 indicating that the petitioner should prefer an appeal before the appropriate Court. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-1 dated 11.3.98 the memorandum of appeal was returned to the petitioner for filing before the competent Court. It is also averred in the petition that initially there was no response and the petitioner was earlier told that an appeal would lie to the concerned District Judge of District. He filed an appeal before the District Judge who has directed the petitioner to file the notification conferring the appellate powers on the District Judge. Challenging the orders passed vide Annexure P-1 and P-4 where the State Government has refused to entertain the appeal Mr. He filed an appeal before the District Judge who has directed the petitioner to file the notification conferring the appellate powers on the District Judge. Challenging the orders passed vide Annexure P-1 and P-4 where the State Government has refused to entertain the appeal Mr. Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the appellate power still rests with the State Government and the amendment which has been brought by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1997 No. 21 of 1997 has not amended the section 6C of the Act. Mr. Thakur, Deputy Government Advocate referred to the amended section 12A (1) and 12AB to show that the order passed by the State Government is justified. To appreciate the rival submission raised at the Bar, it is essential to refer to section 6C of the Act. For the present purpose section 6(C) (1) is relevant which reads as under : "6(C) (1). Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Section 6A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to the State Government concerned and the State Government shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against." In view of the aforesaid section there remains no iota of doubt that the power of appellate jurisdiction has been vested with the State Government. The reliance on the provisions of Ordinance by Mr. Thakur, Dy, Government Advocate is of no assistance as it no- where indicates that section 6C has been amended. Nothing has been put forth that there is any State amendment to confer powers on a Judicial Authority to hear the appeals. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the orders passed vide Annexure P-1 and P-4 are liable to be quashed and accordingly I do so. The petitioner is permitted to present his memorandum of appeal before the State Government within four weeks from today and thereafter the State Government shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed without any order as to costs.