S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS case highlights how badly the respondent authorities of the Commercial Tax Department treat the citizens. The petitioner s vehicle was seized and detained by the 1st respondent vide the impugned proceedings dated 30-3-2001. It reads:"proceedings of the Special Assistant commercial Tax Officer, Check Post, Gooty present: B. G. Kumar sub :apgst Act 1957 - Guntakal Circle - Gooty. Check Post - Detained the lorry AP2-T-3445 transporting 125 bags of castor seed worth Rs. 1,03,950/- at Gooty Check Post relating to M/s. Revathi Trading Corporation, anantapur - Detention orders passed. Ref:1. Statement of Sri M. Siva Prasad, custodian of the goods in Lorry no. AP02-T 3445, dated 30-3-2001 4. Detention notice of the check post dated 30-3-2001 5. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool ref, B2/164/2000. ORDER : m/s. Revathi Trading Corporation, anantapur are transporting 126 bags (9,450 kgs) of castor seed worth of rs. 1,03,950/- in Lorry No. AP 02t 3445 from Palthur Village to Hyderabad as per way bill No. 0340524, dated 29-3-2001. The Lorry was stopped at Gooty Check post on 30-3-2001 at 3. 00 a. m. verified the records and issued detention notice to the custodian of the goods as per the instructions of the Deputy commissioner (CT), Kurnool in the reference 3rd cited. Further the CTO (int), Kurnool informed by telephonically that M/s. Revathi trading Corporation, Anantapur are in arrears of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the year 2000-2001 and instructed to detain the goods till the dealer pays the tax in full or to produce tax clearance certificate from the concerned Commercial Tax officer. Accordingly a notice has been issued to the custodian of the goods and an opportunity was given for payment of the tax in full or to produce tax clearance certificate from the concerned CTO. The dealer appeared and expressed his inability for payment of taxes due to the department. In view of the above the goods have been detained and handed over to the owner Sri P. Lakshminarayana of M/s. Lalitha Oil Mills, Gooty, RS and obtained an acknowledgment from the above oil miller in token of receipt of the 134 bags of castor seed in good condition. Further instructions were given to m/s. Lalitha Oil Mills, Gooty, RS not to deliver the goods to the party until further orders from the undersigned. (Sd/- xx xx xx xx) special Assistant commercial Tax Officer, check Post Gooty. Further instructions were given to m/s. Lalitha Oil Mills, Gooty, RS not to deliver the goods to the party until further orders from the undersigned. (Sd/- xx xx xx xx) special Assistant commercial Tax Officer, check Post Gooty. To P. Prabhakar Gupta, On behalf of M/s. Revathi Trading Corporation, Anantapur. Copy to: the owner of M/s. Lalitha Oil Mills, Gooty, RS. " ( 2 ) THE only reason disclosed in the impugned proceeding to detain the goods vehicle is that the 3rd respondent herein has received a telephonic communication that the petitioner Corporation are in arrears of Rs. 66 lakhs during the assessment year 2000-2001 and instructing the 3rd respondent to detain the goods till the dealer pays the tax in full or till he produces the tax clearance certificate from the concerned commercial Tax Officer. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner-Corporation has specifically stated that it is not in arrears for the year 2000-2001 and therefore the detention of the vehicle is totally unauthorised. It is also contended in the writ petition that the very seizure and detention of the vehicle is one without jurisdiction and in violation of the conditions specified under sub-section (6) of Section 29 of the APGST act, 1959 (for short "the Act") for invoking the power of detention. ( 3 ) IN response to Rule Nisi, the 1st respondent has filed counter. The relevant paras 2 to 4 of the counter read:"2, I respectfully submit that I was discharging my duty at Check Post on 30-3-2001. While, so, Lorry bearing no. AP 02 T 1580 and Lorry bearing no. AP 02 T 3445 passing through the gooty Check Post carrying consignment of 134 bags and 125 bags of castor seeds valuing Rs. 1,15,000 and Rs. 1,03,950/ -. These two consignments belonged to the revathi Trading Corporation, Anantapur. I detained these two lorries in view of the telegram received from the deputy Commissioner (CT, Kurnool dated 24-3-2001. It is submitted that after detention of the Lorries, the goods namely castor seeds unloaded kept in the custody of the department and the lorries were allowed to go. 3. Against the detention of the goods, the present writ petition came up to be filed before this Hon ble Court. This Hon ble Court by an order dated 4-4-2001 was pleased to pass interim direction for release of the goods. 3. Against the detention of the goods, the present writ petition came up to be filed before this Hon ble Court. This Hon ble Court by an order dated 4-4-2001 was pleased to pass interim direction for release of the goods. I submit that in obedience to the orders of this Hon ble High Court, I released the goods on 6-4-2001 through my release order dated 6-4-2001. 4. I understand and believe to be true that the purpose of the Deputy commissioner (CT), Kurnool directing for detention of the goods of the petitioner is that the petitioner is indulging in clandestine business in castor seeds thereby evading huge amount of sales tax to the department. " ( 4 ) THE 1st respondent has the audacity to swear to the fact that he received a telegram from the Deputy Commissioner, ct, Kurnool dated 24-3-2001 directing him to detain the goods vehicle of the petitioner without disclosing the contents of the telegram. In para 4, it is further stated that the petitioner is indulging in clandestine business in caster seeds and is evading huge amount of sales tax to the respondents. It is necessary to state that the above averment made in para 4 of the affidavit is an improvement to what is stated in the impugned proceeding. None of these allegations do find a place in the impugned proceeding, except a reference to the alleged telephone communication received from the commercial Tax Officer, the 3rd respondent herein. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief election Commissioner and others, AIR 1978 sc 851 , the Supreme Court has opined that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, the order bad in the beginning may, by the time comes to Court on account of challenge get validated by additional grounds later brought out and there will be every scope for the administration to improve its defence to cover up its wrong doing. Be that as it may, either in the impugned proceeding or in the counter filed by the 1st respondent, we do not find existence of conditions precedent for invoking the power under sub-section (6) of section 29 of the Act. Be that as it may, either in the impugned proceeding or in the counter filed by the 1st respondent, we do not find existence of conditions precedent for invoking the power under sub-section (6) of section 29 of the Act. Sub-section (6) of section 29 reads:" (6) If the tax directed to be paid (and the security) directed to be furnished under sub-section (3) is not paid (and furnished) and if the said officer is satisfied, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, that with a view of prevent the evasion of tax payable in respect of the sale or purchase of the goods carried it is necessary to detain the goods, he shall detain so much of the goods as are approximately equal in value to the amount of tax directed to be paid (and security) directed to be furnished under sub-section (3) as long as may reasonably be necessary. Provided that no such goods shall be detained by the said officer for more than three days except with the permission of the next higher authority. " ( 5 ) FURTHER more, the impugned proceeding is also vitiated on account of the 1st respondent acting under dictation. Neither the 2nd respondent nor the 3rd respondent is the donee of the power conferred by the statute in sub-section (6) of section 29 of the Act. The power conferred upon the 1 st respondent who is the donee of the power under sub-section (6) should be exercised independently, and he cannot surrender his discretion to the dictates of either the 2nd respondent or the 3rd respondent. ( 6 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the impugned proceeding. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000/- payable to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.