Judgment This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13.5.98 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein was followed in part. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The appellants are owner of a Dal Mill know as Sarbodaya Dal Mill. It had been granted licence to run and operate the said Dal Mill by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. It, however, does not possess any licence under the provisions of West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978, made by the State in exercise of its delegating notification issued by the Central Government exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The sole Contention of the appellants before the learned trial Judge as also before us is that it being a producer, no licence was required to be taken by it. The words ‘dealer’ and ‘producer’ had been defined in Clauses (b) and (h) of Paragraph 2 of the said Order, which read thus:- “(b) “dealer” means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale, or storage for sale, of any pulses, edible oilseeds or edible oils, whether or not in conjunction with any other business and includes his representative or argent; (h) “producer” means a person carrying on the business of milling any of the pulses or expelling or extracting or manufacturing any edible oil – (i) by buying pulses or edible oilseeds for processed by himself and selling the finished products to a wholesaler of though a commission agent; or (ii) by doing any of the processes of milling expelling, extracting or manufacturing on behalf of another.” 4. However, on a bare perusal of the records, it would appear that the allegation against the appellants was that instead and place of selling its products though a commission agent, it had been selling its products to the wholesale dealers and the retail dealers. On the basis of such allegation, a search and seizure was made and about 720 bags of Kalai Gota, Kalai Milling Loose 10.170 Kgs. And Kalai Dal 59 bags as also some documents had been seized. 5. The learned Trial Judge, inter alia, held that the action on the part of the respondents concerned to lock mill premises was illegal. On the basis of such allegation, a search and seizure was made and about 720 bags of Kalai Gota, Kalai Milling Loose 10.170 Kgs. And Kalai Dal 59 bags as also some documents had been seized. 5. The learned Trial Judge, inter alia, held that the action on the part of the respondents concerned to lock mill premises was illegal. However, as regard the contention that the search and seizure was illegal, the learned trial Judge directed:- “As it is submitted by the parties that such seized pulses are lying the same floor of the mill where the machine also situate, the Investigate Officer shall forthwith visit the premises and in presence of the petitioners he shall put all pulses which are on the floor into bags and seal all such seized pulses in presence of the petitioner No. 2 who shall also be made the Zimmadar of such seized pulses. It is made clear that until the order is passed by the concerned Collector, such sealed pulses will not be interfered with by the petitioners although they may carry on their present business in accordance with law.” 6. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, inter alia, submitted that the learned trial Judge went wrong in relying upon Paragraph 12 of the Order, although the provisions in relation to search and seizure are incorporated in Paragraph 13 thereof. According to the learned Counsel for the purpose of making a search and seizure of the premises, it was required to comply with the following requirements:- (i) there is existence of a reason to believe; (ii) the appellant is a dealer. 7. The question which has fallen for consideration of this Court is as to whether the confiscation proceedings initiated against the appellants is valid, or not. A confiscation proceeding in terms of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, can inter alia, be initiated if a person is found to have violated the provision of any Order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, or the conditions of a licence. Admittedly, in terms of the provisions of the said Order, no dealer can carry out any business of purchasing, selling or storing for sale any commodity mentioned therein, unless he is granted a licence therefore. Admittedly, in terms of the provisions of the said Order, no dealer can carry out any business of purchasing, selling or storing for sale any commodity mentioned therein, unless he is granted a licence therefore. The question as to whether the appellants being producer were required to have a licence of a dealer, in our considered view, would depend upon a finding of fact as to whether they had been selling out their products through commission agent, or not. The same being a question of fact, in our opinion, such jurisdictional fact should be allowed to be decided at the first instance by the confiscating authority. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find ant merit in this appeal, which is according dismissed. We, however, would direct the Collector, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, to pass an appropriate order in the confiscation proceedings at and early date and later than 3 weeks from the dated of communication of this order. It is made clear that it would be open to the appellants to raise all contentions raised in the writ application as also in this appeal, before the Collector.