O R D E R This writ petition has been filed to declare the order of the first respondent in GO Ms.no.422 Food and Civil Supplies (IV) Department dated 18.8.1995 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.HI/6A/22/89 dated 6.11.1990 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently sought a direction to set aside the same. The petitioner is a dealer in food grains at Pamur village of Prakasam District. The 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act basing the report of the third respondent for the contravention of conditions 3(1) to VI and 4 of the Licence of AP Scheduled Commodities Dealer (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 read with Section-7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The third respondent has reported that on 15.4.1989 at 10 a.m.. he surprised the shop of the petitioner and he found that there are 35 bags of gingle, each bag containing 75 kilo grams and 122 bags of bajra, each bag containing 100 kilo grams. It is alleged in the report that there is no valid licence and that there is no stock register pertaining to the above commodities. The second respondent later issued notice under section 6B to the petitioner and in pursuance of the same the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 6. 11.1990 confiscating 75% of the seized stock in favour of the Government. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent passed the impugned order in GO Ms.No.422 dated 18.8.1995 confirming the orders of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non- maintenance of the records is not intentional and that there is free movement of the commodities seized in the market. As they are not controlled commodities and also there is no price fixation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the APSCD Orders are not applicable with respect to the above said commodities. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As they are not controlled commodities and also there is no price fixation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the APSCD Orders are not applicable with respect to the above said commodities. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In view of the fact that the confiscated items are not controlled commodities, it has to be held that the orders passed by the authorities is not in confirmity with the provisions of the APSCD (L & D) Order, 1892. It has also to be observed that both the authorities have failed to observe that the seized stocks are not controlled commodities and hence they are not liable to be confiscated. Under the above circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent in GO.Ms.No.422 Food and Civil Supplies (IV) Department dated 18.8.1995 wherein he confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondent is illegal. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. --X--