S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent in confirming the order of the 2nd Respondent and confiscating 30% of the seized stocks to the Government. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner is roller flourmill carrying on the business in wheat products. It has got a licence under Wheat Roller flourmills (Control Order), 1957, which is a central Control Order. It is also stated that under the said licence, the Petitioner s mill has got 750 Metric Tonnes Capacity per month and to that extent the quantity of wheat is being released as per the orders of the Central Government by the Food corporation of India. Out of the sanctioned quantity of 750 MTs. of wheat, the Petitioner lifted only 300 MTs. during the month of february 1985 and 400 MTs. up to 10th april, 1985 as there was no sufficient demand in the market. However, at the instance of the 3rd Respondent, a case was registered before the 2nd Respondent alleging certain contraventions. According to the 3rd Respondent, he noticed unloading of 7 bags of wheat from out of a lorry, which was transporting the wheat on 4-4-1985 and thereafter the 3rd Respondent alongwith his staff inspected the mill premises of the petitioner on 7-4-1985 and seized various quantities of wheat products alleging certain contraventions of the Andhra Pradesh scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Distribution) Order, 1982. In pursuance of the complaint, the 2nd Respondent initiated Section 6-A proceedings. The 2nd respondent after hearing both sides, passed an order holding contravention of Clause (3) of the Control Order 1957 and also the instructions of the Commissioner of Civil supplies and therefore, issued confiscation of 50% of the seized quantity of wheat, maida, ravva and atta. Aggrieved by that, the Petitioner preferred appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st Respondent also, after considering the rival contentions and after going through the order of the original authority, gave a finding that as far as not having a licence under the Control Order 1957 is concerned, he accepted the claim of the Petitioner that his licence was sent for renewal and it was subsequently renewed and therefore, that issue was dropped. But insofar as the contravention of the instructions of the Commissioner, the appellate authority upheld the view of the original authority. But insofar as the contravention of the instructions of the Commissioner, the appellate authority upheld the view of the original authority. Further, the appellate authority recorded a finding that the appellant dealer has no motive to do any black-marketing or clandestine business. Therefore, taking a lenient view ordered 30% confiscation of the seized stock, instead of 50% ordered by the original authority. Aggrieved by that, the Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that though the Central Control order applies to the Wheat and Wheat products, there was no demand for any of the products and therefore, the Petitioner also did not even lift the entire quantity of 750 MTs. , per month allotted to the petitioner. In view of the low demand for the wheat products, the Petitioner lifted only 300 MTs. in the month of February and 400 MTs. up to 10th April. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel that the a. P. Scheduled Commodities Control Order has no application, as the Petitioner has already obtained a licence under the Central control Order. The learned counsel also contended that the instructions issued by the commissioner of Civil Supplies have no application to the licensees under the 1957 control Order. The learned counsel also contended that there are no clear findings in what way the Petitioner had violated the control Orders. Therefore, the impugned order, confiscating 30% of the seized stock is illegal and unsustainable, especially in the light of the finding recorded by the appellate authority that the Petitioner had no motive to do any black marketing or clandestine business. The learned counsel also contended that as per various judgments of this Court, every contravention would not entail the authorities to confiscate either the whole or part of the seized stocks and hence sought for setting aside the impugned order. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader supported the order of the appellate authority. But, however, at the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader was unable to place any material showing that under which provision the commissioner of Civil Supplies had given instructions as to the distribution or sale of the wheat products. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader supported the order of the appellate authority. But, however, at the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader was unable to place any material showing that under which provision the commissioner of Civil Supplies had given instructions as to the distribution or sale of the wheat products. ( 5 ) FROM the above rival contentions the issue to be considered is whether the impugned order passed by the appellate authority restricting the confiscation of 30% of the seized stock is legal and sustainable? ( 6 ) THE facts stated above are not in dispute that the Petitioner was a licensee for running a Roller Flour Mill and he was also permitted to lift 750 MTs. of wheat per month, as per the licence granted by the central Government under 1957 Control order. According to the Respondents, the 3rd Respondent noticed the unloading of 7 bags of wheat from out of the lorry, which was transporting the wheat to the Petitioner on 4- 4-1985 and consequently on 7-4-1985 the 3rd Respondent along with his staff inspected the mill premises of the Petitioner and found certain contraventions. It is also the case of the Respondents that as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Civil supplies, out of 100% of the wheat products 50% has to be supplied as per the permits issued by the Commissioner, while the balance of 50% can be disposed of by the licensee in the open market, while, at the same time, keeping 25% of the product in stock. But on the date when the inspection was conducted, the Petitioner was found to have effected sales of the wheat products in contravention of the said directions of the commissioner i. e. by effecting sale of more than 50% of the wheat products for the month of March 1985. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the authority after conducting the enquiry after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and having satisfied that there was contravention of the conditions or instructions of the Commissioner, ordered confiscation of the 50% of the seized stock. When the said order was assailed before the appellate authority, the appellate authority reduced the confiscation to 30%. When the said order was assailed before the appellate authority, the appellate authority reduced the confiscation to 30%. But the contention of the Petitioner is that there was absolutely no demand to the wheat or wheat products during the relevant period and in fact it is his contention that for the last six months prior to the date of inspection, no permits were issued by the Commissioner and even where the permits were issued, the permit holders did not lift the wheat products. Therefore, there is no contravention as alleged by the authorities. In fact, according to the learned counsel, though the Petitioner was entitled to lift 750 MTs. wheat per month, he could not lift even 50% of it for the month of February and the Petitioner could lift only 300 MTs. While for the month of March, the Petitioner could lift only 400 MTs. up to the 10th April 1985. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioner had raised specific grounds as to the non-issue of permits by the commissioner for the sale of wheat products to the permit holders and the non- lifting of the wheat products by the permit holders, even though permits were issued such contention was not even adverted to by the Commissioner, who is the appellate authority. In the light of such uncontroverted contentions, the allegations made by the Respondent that the Petitioner had violated the conditions of licence or any other instructions of the Commissioner is clearly illegal and without any basis. In fact, the learned counsel also relied upon the finding of the appellate authority, who have recorded that there is no motive on the part of the Petitioner to do any black marketing or clandestine business, while ordering confiscation of 30% of the seized stock. According to the learned counsel, when once such a finding has been recorded, there is absolutely no justification for ordering any confiscation. It is settled law that every contravention would not entail the authorities to order confiscation of the seized commodities. The Control Order is intended only to make the goods/commodities available for the public distribution. When the material on record clearly shows that there was no demand for the wheat products during the relevant point of time, the observations or findings arrived by the appellate authority contrary to the material on record, is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Control Order is intended only to make the goods/commodities available for the public distribution. When the material on record clearly shows that there was no demand for the wheat products during the relevant point of time, the observations or findings arrived by the appellate authority contrary to the material on record, is illegal and without jurisdiction. In fact, the contentions advanced by the Petitioner that no permits at all were issued by the Commissioner for the last more than six months is not controverted. The Petitioner, after all, is carrying on the business in wheat products, having received the stock from the FCI, as per the permits granted by the Government. When once the Petitioner converts the wheat into wheat products, he has to dispose of the same in the market either as per the directions of the authorities or otherwise. When the Commissioner did not issue any permits for lifting the wheat products or even after the issue of such permits, there were no permit holders to lift the stock, due to less demand in the market, the Petitioner cannot be found fault for selling the same in the open market. It is not the case of the authorities that the Petitioner did not supply the wheat products to any of the permit holders. ( 7 ) UNDER the above circumstances, and in the light of the finding recorded by the appellate authority that the petitioner has no motive to do any black marketing or clandestine business, the order of confiscation is clearly illegal and unsustainable. The authorities have seized the entire stock that was available on the date of the inspection and kept in their custody, without making it available to the petitioner to carry on its business and the said stock was released only by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court. That itself is a sufficient penalty to the Petitioner. ( 8 ) UNDER the above circumstances, the confiscation of 30% of the seized stock is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.