ORDER :- Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P10, and seeking a direction to release the entire quantity of rice stored by the petitioner in the godown of the State Warehousing Corporation at Cheruvannur covered by Ext. P2 receipt less the quantity already removed. He also seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to hand over the stock of rice of 2893 bags stored in the said godown and covered by Ext. P2 less the quantity already removed. He seeks other incidental prayers as well. Exhibit P10 is an order passed by the District Collector, Kozhikode confiscating 2893 bags of boiled rice belonging to M/s. Munnar Traders under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and directing its sale by Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation observing certain rules and regulations in that regard with sufficient protection to the sale proceeds. Exhibit P10 is an appealable order as per Section 6C of the said Act even admittedly by the petitioner. Inspite of that, the petitioner has resorted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court contending before me that Ext. P10 is without jurisdiction and violating the principles of natural justice in which case, the alternate remedy shall not be a bar to entertain a writ petition. The petitioner is well justified in contending so. Therefore, inspite of the appellate remedy available, I am called upon to examine the legality or otherwise of Ext. P10, the impugned order. 2. Exhibit P10 is an order passed by the District Collector, Kozhikode in respect of the alleged illegal storage of the aforesaid quantity of rice. It is admitted by the petitioner, the managing partner of M/s. Munnar Traders, that he had stored the aforesaid quantity of rice in a godown of Kerala State Warehousing Corporation at Cheruvannur in Kozhikode district. Admittedly by the petitioner, he holds a licence for purchase, sale and store for sale of rice and paddy as per Ext.P1 licence issued under clause 4(2) of the Kerala Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 by the District Supply Officer, Idukki, the 4th respondent. Condition No. 2 of the licence reads as follows : "(a) The licence shall carry on the aforesaid business at the following place(s) : Building No. 2148-2621, Ward No. IX, Munnar Panchayat. Condition No. 2 of the licence reads as follows : "(a) The licence shall carry on the aforesaid business at the following place(s) : Building No. 2148-2621, Ward No. IX, Munnar Panchayat. (b) Foodgrains in which the aforesaid business to be carried on shall not be stored at any place other than any of the godowns mentioned below : 2033/IX of Munnar Panchayat, an Addl. godown vide PT dgp No. B5-9122/91 dt. 3/92." Thus, the licence issued to the petitioner is to have business in purchase, sell and storage for sale of rice and paddy in a particular place/godown. 3. Petitioner submits that the Note in the licence enables him to store the rice and paddy in any other place also, "if he gives prior intimation to the licensing authority .......... about the storage in any other place." According to him, he had issued Ext. P3 intimation to the District Supply Officer, Idukki as early as on 19-11-98 about the storage of goods at Cheruvannur in Kozhikode district because of the lack of sufficient space in the godown at Munnar. Therefore, storage at Cheruvannur is in accordance with the licence conditions and in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order issued in terms of Section 3 read with Sec. 5 of the Act. Hereinafter it is referred to as "the Order". So, there was no illegality or violation of licence conditions or the Order to result an order confiscating of the rice so stored as done in Ext. P10. Therefore, there was absolutely no jurisdiction factually for the District Collector to confiscate the foodgrains that he had stored in the godown at Cheruvannur in Kozhikode district. It is further contended by the petitioner that his licensing authority being the District Supply Officer, Idukki, the District Collector, Kozhikode does not have any authority over the stock which he had stored in terms of Exh. P1 licence. That also is an added reason to contend that the District Collector does not have any jurisdiction, to issue Ext. P10. It is further contended by the petitioner that his licensing authority being the District Supply Officer, Idukki, the District Collector, Kozhikode does not have any authority over the stock which he had stored in terms of Exh. P1 licence. That also is an added reason to contend that the District Collector does not have any jurisdiction, to issue Ext. P10. It is contended further that as the District Collector, Kozhikode did not enquire with the District Supply Officer at Idukki, his licensing authority, as to whether he possesses a valid licence or not, there was violation of the principles of the natural justice in not considering the relevant materials so far as the storage by the petitioner is concerned. Exhibit P10 discloses that the District Collector, Kozhikode did ascertain details only from the District Supply Officer, Kozhikode who was not the licensing authority of the petitioner. Therefore, the necessary materials are not considered by the District Collector, Kozhikode depriving the petitioner his opportunity to defend the case with reference to his own licence. Without enquiring about the veracity of Ext. P1 licence, an order like Ext. P10 should not have been issued. 4. Relying on the decision in Narayana Prabhu and Sons v. State of Kerala, 1981 Ker LT (SN) Case No. 81 at page 43), petitioner contends that he can store the food grains for which he is licensed to trade, in any place other than the place mentioned in the licence, as the only obligation cast on him as per the licence condition is to give prior intimation. The said Short Note report in its entirety reads as follows : "The note to Cl. 2(b) of the licence on the other hand enables a licensee to store his foodgrains in places other than those specified in the licence and the only obligation in that regard so far as the licenses is concerned is to give intimation of storing in such places to the licensing authority. The note also permits the licensee to the premises other than those mentioned in the licence as a storage of food grains without prior intimation in so far as per that note he need give prior intimation only wherever that is possible. The note also permits the licensee to the premises other than those mentioned in the licence as a storage of food grains without prior intimation in so far as per that note he need give prior intimation only wherever that is possible. However, the licensee will have to give intimation subsequent to the occupation of such premises as a storage and this should be within 48 hours of the actual occupation of the said premises." Petitioner therefore submits that as he had given Ext. P3 prior intimation, he has not violated any of the conditions of licence or any of the provisions of the Order. The storage of rice by him at Cheruvannur was in terms of the licence perfectly justified and legal. 5. Reading of the entirety of the case report does not disclose whether in the case dealt with therein the storage was beyond the limit of the licensing authority concerned. Here, the District Supply Officer, Idukki, who is the licensing authority so far as the petitioner is concerned, cannot exercise his jurisdiction beyond the limit of Idukki revenue district, as there is an officer with equal power in Kozhikode district. When a district officer is issuing any licence, necessarily, the validity and operation of the licence cannot travel beyond the geographical limits of his jurisdiction, because officers with corresponding power and equal rank are appointed to exercise the very same function in other districts. Licence under the said Order is issued to regulate movement of foodgrains and to avoid unnecessary hoarding resulting in shortage of foodgrains. Each district officer is empowered as the licensing authority. Therefore, licence issued by such authority shall be with a view that licensing authority shall have control over the stock of foodgains within his district wherever it is stored with the permission or with the licence, so that he can have inspection over such stock and find whether there is violation of the licence condition or provisions in the Order or not. Section 3(2)(j) of the Act provides for entry and examination of premises when contravention of the Order is suspected. On the other hand, if the contention of the petitioner, that after obtaining a licence from one district authority, he can store the foodgrains in any other district is accepted, it will result in deprivation of the right to inspect so far as the licensing authority is concerned. On the other hand, if the contention of the petitioner, that after obtaining a licence from one district authority, he can store the foodgrains in any other district is accepted, it will result in deprivation of the right to inspect so far as the licensing authority is concerned. A district officer at Idukki cannot travel beyond his jurisdiction to exercise his statutory power. Therefore, the contention that one is enabled in terms of the Order and under the licence, after giving prior intimation, to store foodrains anywhere in the State cannot be accepted, even with the aid of the ruling cited and relied on by the petitioner. Therefore, so long as Ext. P1 licence is issued by a district authority, it confines to that district alone and on the strength of Ext. P1 licence, the petitioner cannot store validly and with authority rice and paddy in any other district. Petitioner does not have a case before me that he does hold a licence from District Supply Officer, Kozhikode. Therefore, storage of rice and paddy made admittedly by the petitioner in a godown at Kozhikode without licence from the District Officer, Kozhikode who is the licensing authority so far as that district is concerned, is unauthorised. Under clause 3 of the Order no one can carry on business except under a licence. He has no licence to store rice in Kozhikode district. Storing is a part of the business. It is thus violative of Clause 3 of the Order. Section 6A of the Act enables the District Collector to confiscate the articles when "there has been contravention of the Order". When it is thus found that there is unauthorised storing of rice by the petitioner in a godown at Kozhikode admittedly without licence from the licensing authority at Kozhikode, the District Collector shall have jurisdiction to confiscate it. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention by the petitioner with regard to jurisdictional error on the basis that he is not the licensing authority so far as the petitioner is concerned. This is a clear case of violation of clause 3 of the Order as the storage was not under a licence. 6. Equally so is the contention with regard to the violation of the principles of natural justice. This is a clear case of violation of clause 3 of the Order as the storage was not under a licence. 6. Equally so is the contention with regard to the violation of the principles of natural justice. While the District Collector was examining whether the storage of rice in a godown at Kozhikode was with or without licence, the District Collector need enquire only with the licensing authority who is empowered to issue licence within that district, because with the aid of the licence issued in Idukki district one cannot store rice, as already found by me, in Kozhikode District. In such circumstances, the District Collector is bound to enquire with regard to the existence of the licence in favour of the petitioner only from that officer. So, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as well. Moreover, that is not a facet of that doctrine. On the other hand, Ext. P10 had been passed with due notice and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as enjoined in Section 6B of the Act. His contentions were duly considered in Ext. P10. Exhibit P10 contains the reasons in support of the Order. Thus, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Entering into the field of merit with regard to Ext. P10, the petitioner contends that violation of the conditions of licence and violation with regard to the provisions in the Order has to be viewed separately as held by this Court in Abdulla Koya v. State, 1978 Ker LT 291 as clause 12 in the said Order separately deals with the contravention of the provisions of the Order and of the conditions of licence. But, it has to be read from Clause 3 of the Order itself that, "No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence ............" (Emphasis supplied) 8. This is not an issue with regard to violation of the condition of licence issued to the petitioner, because as already mentioned above the petitioner has valid licence confined to Idukki revenue district alone. Petitioner does not admittedly have a licence issued from the District Supply Officer, Kozhikode. When there is no such licence, as already found by me above, storage of foodgrains by the petitioner in Kozhikode district is unauthorised. Petitioner does not admittedly have a licence issued from the District Supply Officer, Kozhikode. When there is no such licence, as already found by me above, storage of foodgrains by the petitioner in Kozhikode district is unauthorised. It is without a licence. As per Clause 3 of the Order 'no person can carry on business as dealer except under' a licence. He has stored the rice in Kozhikode, as a part of his business as a dealer. A licence is essential as per the Order. He does not have a licence from the District Supply Officer, Kozhikode. Thus, there is violation of Clause 3 of the Order. So, the stock was seized as part Ext. P5. Section 6A of the Act provides that if there is contravention of the Order the stock can be confiscated. Thus, this a case of contravention of the Order itself. 9. Relying on the decision in Sathish and Co. v. State of Kerala, 1983 Ker LT 240, petitioner contends that confiscation ordered as per Ext. P10 is not justified at all. When a licence is necessary in terms of the statutory provisions, and when the petitioner does not have, admittedly, a licence issued from the licensing authority of the Kozhikode district, he cannot store foodgrains there. The unauthorised dealings in rice shall necessarily invite stringent action as it affects millions of people who depend on rice in this State for their daily bread. Therefore, when confiscation order is issued finding that there is unauthorised storage of foodgrains, necessarily, confiscation proceedings initiated cannot be said to be unjustified. Thus, there is no error in Ext. P10 either factually or jurisdictionally. When Ext. P10 is thus legal and sustainable, the petitioner cannot get any direction as prayed for. Original petition fails. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.