V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) ALL these Writ Petitions are filed by the rice Millers questioning different orders dated 31-1-1995 passed by the Joint collector, Ongole confirmed by the commissioner of Civil Supplies (Appeals) and Ex-Officio Secretary of the Government, food and Civil Supplies Department in different Government Orders dt. 20-01-1996 and as the common question of fact and law is involved, they are disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) AS the facts are similar in all the Writ petitions, the facts in one case i. e. , W. P. No. 9187/1996 are stated as follows:- it is stated that the petitioner is a licenced miller. Under the provisions of A. P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 (herein after referred to as "levy order), every licenced miller shall sell to the F. ood Corporation of India 50% of the total quantity of the rice milled and the balance 50% can be sold by him both within and outside the State in accordance with the release certificate issued by the authority for the crop year 1993-94 i. e. , the period commencing from 01-10-1993 to 30-09-1994 which is concerned in the writ Petition. The petitioner delivered the targeted quantity to the Food corporation of India and applied for issuance of the release certificate for the disposal of the levy free rice and 11 release certificates were issued on different dates from 20-03-1994 to 04-07-1994 for the sale of rice within the state. It is the case of the petitioner that as there was no market in the State, he submitted the said release certificate in the office of the authorized officer and got endorsements on each of the certificates for sale of rice outside the state. The Loading Officer of the Civil supplies Department, Ongole, after verification, has submitted the stock to be loaded into the lorries and allowed the lorries to proceed to the destination outside the State. The border Check post authorities who had checked the same also submitted an original release certificates left with them to the authorized officer. The Loading Officer of the Civil supplies Department, Ongole, after verification, has submitted the stock to be loaded into the lorries and allowed the lorries to proceed to the destination outside the State. The border Check post authorities who had checked the same also submitted an original release certificates left with them to the authorized officer. ( 3 ) IT is further stated that the petitioner has submitted fresh applications for the grant of release certificate for the balance quantity of levy free rice to the extent of his eligibility for the sale of rice within and outside the State as the case may be and when it was refused all the Millers including the petitioner filed W. P. No. 57550/1994 and this Court by order dated 3-10-1994 directed the Collector, Joint Collector, Prakasam district and the Commissioner, Civil supplies, A. P. , Hyderabad to dispose of the applications of the petitioners for issuance of the release certificates by 11-10-1994. The collector, Ongole by order dated 10-10-1994 rejected the applications on the ground that the Director General, Vigilance Cell and enforcement and Ex. Officio Secretary to government, General Administration department, furnished a list of 92 Millers and directed not to issue further permits to the Millers on the ground that 92 Millers misused 624 permits by altering the permits from andhra Pradesh State to other State and that a case was also registered under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in Crime Nos. 56 to 149 of 1994 dated 28-09-1994. Challenging the said order, the millers filed W. P. No. 19035/1994. This court by order dated 14-11-1994 allowed the writ Petition with certain directions with regard to the issuance of release certificates keeping it open to the respondents to take any action permissible under law against them after conducting enquiry and other investigations against them. Against the said judgment, the State filed W. P. No. 1505/1994 in which an interim order was passed on 30-12-1994 stating that the judgment in the writ Petition shall not preclude the authorities from acting in accordance with law, including the Control Orders made under the E. C. Act. Against the said judgment, the State filed W. P. No. 1505/1994 in which an interim order was passed on 30-12-1994 stating that the judgment in the writ Petition shall not preclude the authorities from acting in accordance with law, including the Control Orders made under the E. C. Act. It is further stated that without issuing release orders the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies department has inspected the Rice Mill on 18-12-1994 under the alleged continuation of the investigation into the aforesaid crime numbers entered into the Rice Mill and searched and seized the entire available ground stock on the ground that the petitioner misused the release certificates issued by the District Supply Officer, Ongole and violated Clause 7 (a) (1) (2) and clause (12) of the Levy Order read with section 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities act, 1995. The seized stocks were handed over to another rice mill for the safe custody. Thereupon, the Joint Collector issued a show cause notice dt. 20-03-1995 under Sec. 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act directing the petitioner and other millers to show cause as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated in favour of the Government. All the millers submitted explanations to the show cause notices. The Joint Collector passed final orders on 31-03-1995 under section 6-A of the Act directing confiscation of the value of the quantity equal to the quantity that was covered by the release certificates alleged to have been misused i. e. , at the rate of Rs. 60,000. 00 per permit of 10 mts taking the average procurement price of Rs. 600. 00 per quintal as the basis. Questioning the said orders of the Joint collector, the petitioners filed appeals before the Government under Section 6-C of the act and the order of the Joint Collector were stayed pending disposal of the appeals and ultimately the 1st respondent by different orders dated 16-01-1996 in different g. O. Ms. Numbers all dated 20-01-1996 dismissed the appeals confirming the order of the Joint Collector. Questioning the said orders of the 1st respondent, all these Writ petitions are filed. Numbers all dated 20-01-1996 dismissed the appeals confirming the order of the Joint Collector. Questioning the said orders of the 1st respondent, all these Writ petitions are filed. ( 4 ) THE Joint Collector issued show cause notice dated 20-03-1995 stating that on information, the District Vigilance and enforcement Officer conducted an enquiry and verified the mill records with reference to the records of the District Supply Officer, ongole and found that the miller misused/ manipulated the release certificates issued by the District Supply Officer, Ongole by altering the destinations in the release certificates. It is stated that the release certificates were issued to transport the paddy within the State but the stock was diverted to the other States and altered the release certificates for pecuniary profits and accordingly cases were registered in different crime numbers. It is further stated that originally the release certificates were obtained for transportation of the rice in andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu but subsequently altered the destinations to andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala states through the altered release certificates, which are invalid. On 18-12-1994, the date of search and seizer, the records of the mill was verified and found that b Register maintained by them prior to 16-07-1994 was taken away by the District vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Nellore and the millers have opened new b registers from 16-07-1994 onwards and stated that the millers have contravened the provisions of the Control Order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and accordingly the entire paddy, rice and brokens found in the mill was seized and a case was filed under Section 6-A of the E. C. Act requesting confiscation of the seized stocks in favour of the Government. It is stated in the Show Cause Notice that the destination in the release certificates in respect of rice was altered to outside the state and the millers have failed to maintain true and correct records obtained authenticated records i. e. b Register. Contraventions are brought out by the report of the Investigation Officer under sec. 6-A of the E. C. Act is Clause 7 (a) (1) (2) of Levy Order and Condition 3 (i) of APSCD (Licencing and Distribution) Order 1982 r/w Section 3 of the E. C. Act. Contraventions are brought out by the report of the Investigation Officer under sec. 6-A of the E. C. Act is Clause 7 (a) (1) (2) of Levy Order and Condition 3 (i) of APSCD (Licencing and Distribution) Order 1982 r/w Section 3 of the E. C. Act. Accordingly, charges framed against them are that the millers transported the rice on the altered release certificates from the State of Andhra pradesh to other States and they have not maintained true and correct records i. e. , b register, and therefore, they were called upon to explain as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated by the government. ( 5 ) DETAILED explanations have been filed by the petitioners denying all the allegations stating that Vigilance Enforcement authorities have visited the mills of the petitioners and resorted to seize the stock on 18-12-1994 alleging that it is in contravention of the crime already registered against them i. e. , four months after the registration of the crime. It is stated that they are not at all guilty of any contravention alleged in the show cause notice and the permits were not at all altered as alleged by them and the office of the District Supply Officer has considered the said request and granted conversion of the permits. The stocks seized subsequently have no connection whatsoever to the so-called altered permits and the stocks covered by the altered permits were already dispatched and they are not now in existence. The existing stocks, which were ready, even in June 1994 and intended to avail the remaining eligibility of the permits of the petitioners. They are duly accounted for and were also verified by the civil Supplies Authorities. There are no variations in respect of the said stock. Since the said stocks have no connection with the so-called altered permits there are no contraventions committed in respect of the seized stock and the seizure itself is illegal and it cannot be confiscated. It is further stated that with regard to the allegations that the b Register was not duly issued by the district Supply Officer, it is stated that since the b Register that was being maintained by them was seized by the Vigilance enforcement authorities and since another b Register was not issued, they have opened a new b Register. It is further stated that with regard to the allegations that the b Register was not duly issued by the district Supply Officer, it is stated that since the b Register that was being maintained by them was seized by the Vigilance enforcement authorities and since another b Register was not issued, they have opened a new b Register. It is stated that since the seized stocks has no connection with the permits already issued and since they are duly accounted for there are no contravention in respect of the same, they are not liable for seizure and confiscation. It is stated that they have not misused the permits and they have not altered or tampered with the permits and the petitioners are not guilty of any of the alleged contraventions and, therefore, the said stocks cannot be seized or confiscated. ( 6 ) THE Joint Collector, after considering the explanations, passed similar orders dated 31-3-1995 and the operative portion of the said orders is as follows:". . . . . There is no doubt that the respondent (petitioner herein) transported the rice on the altered certificate. The alterations were carried out in collusion with some officials with the District Supply Officer s office by selling rice out of Andhra Pradesh state and the altered release certificate, which was originally issued for the sale in Andhra Pradesh State, the respondent (petitioner herein) has violated the Control Orders and instructions and directions of the government under the procurement policy and also deprived the people of andhra Pradesh the said quantity of rice. The other charges are found to be trivial in nature with regard to the maintainability of b Register. Hence, the. . . . . . . . . percentage of the value of the seized stocks are ordered to be confiscated in favour of the government for violation of clause 7 (a) (1) (2) and 12 of Andhra pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) order, 1984 and Condition 3 (i) of the licence issued under APSCD (Landd) order 1982 R/w Section 3 of the e. CAct, 1955". ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said orders, the petitioners filed appeals under Section 6-A of the EC Act before the 1st respondent. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said orders, the petitioners filed appeals under Section 6-A of the EC Act before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, after considering the so- called alteration of release certificates altering the destination from the State of andhra Pradesh to the outside the State i. e. , tamil Nadu and Kerala and after considering the arguments of the parties, dismissed the appeals and the operative portion of the said order is as follows:". . . . . . . THE release permits are issued after a detailed exercise of the eligibility of the millers is worked out for selling rice within the State and outside the State. The residual stock after levy commitments fulfilled alone are released for sale on permits within and outside the State. It is not correct to argue that the stocks confiscated are not attracted by any contravention of control Orders. As the stocks in a mill are always in a state of continuous movement - the stocks available on the spot alone will get attracted for the contravention if any committed by a licensee as otherwise there would be no check on dealers such as the appellant (petitioner herein ). The stock meant for sale within A. P. was diverted. The appellant is duty bound to account for this diversion for sale. The orders of the lower court are hereby confirmed. " ( 8 ) THUS the controversy in these writ petitions is narrowed down i. e. , as to whether the stocks available on the spot in respect of which there were no contraventions can be seized and confiscated for the alleged contravention of the so-called altered release certificate. ( 9 ) RELEASE Certificate is defined in clause 2 (m) of the levy order. Clause 2 (m): release Certificate means a certificate granted in form given in Schedule VII by a Collector or officer authorized by him to a licenced dealer or a licenced miller in token of his having sold the required quantities of paddy/rice to the Food Corporation of India/state Government as the case may be and allowing him to dispose of the quantity specified therein. Clause 2 (d): permit means a permit issued by the Collector or officer authorized by him to a licenced miller to undertake custom milling of paddy. Clause 2 (d): permit means a permit issued by the Collector or officer authorized by him to a licenced miller to undertake custom milling of paddy. Clause 2 (c): custom Milling means milling of paddy, not belonging to the miller, into rice in his rice mill on payment of milling charges in cash or kind. ( 10 ) UNDER Clause (3) of the levy order, every licenced miller shall sell to the Food corporation of India at the procurement price 50% of the total quantity of each variety of rice milled by him. The rice required to be sold to the Food Corporation of India under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Levy order shall be delivered by the licenced dealer to the purchase officer in such lots in such manner at such place at such time as the Government/food Corporation of India of the State Government or purchase officer directs. ( 11 ) THERE is no dispute in all these cases with regard to the delivery of the levy of the rice to the Food Corporation of India in accordance with the clauses of the levy order. Under Clause 7 of the levy Order, the licenced miller is entitled to sell the rice remaining 50% of the levy free rice in accordance with the release certificates issued by the Collector or any authorized officer. The licenced miller shall transport the rice for sale from the premises of the rice mill in accordance with the release certificates issued by the authorized officer. After delivery of the levy rice, the licenced miller may make an application in the form set out in Schedule VI to the Collector or the authorized officer for the issue of the release certificate for the disposal of the levy free rice. On receipt of such an application, the collector or the authorized officer shall issue the release certificate for the movement of the disposal of the levy free rice and the release certificate is issued in form set out in schedule VIII and as per the directions issued by the Government in this regard. Under Clause 12 of the Levy Order, every licenced miller shall comply with such order, direction issued under the Control order. Under Clause 12 of the Levy Order, every licenced miller shall comply with such order, direction issued under the Control order. ( 12 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the corrections made in the release certificates issued in the months of May and june, 1994 by the authorized officer only i. e. , district Supply Officer, Prakasam District altering the place of destination and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was violation of the Levy Order even in respect of the levy free rice transported pursuant to the altered release certificates. It is further stated that the procedure that was in vogue to make any corrections in the release certificates by the District Supply Officer was altered subsequently by the commissioner of Civil Supplies vide CCS circular No. PI/1340/94, dated 27-09-1994 addressed to all the Collectors according to which the corrections on the permit issued shall be cancelled and a fresh permit issued in lieu of the cancelled permits have to be issued by the authorized officer and the said circular which came into force from the date of the issuance of the said circular and the release certificates, which were altered, are all prior to the issuance of the aforesaid circular and, therefore, it cannot be said that the District Supply Officer violated any order or direction issued in this regard and in the earlier release certificates, the destination was altered by the District supply Officer who is competent to do so and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is a violation in respect of the levy free rice that was transported under the release certificates. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, the learned government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that the District Supply Officer altered the release certificates changing the place of destination outside the State of andhra Pradesh in collusion with the millers and traders for transportation of levy free rice from the State of Andhra Pradesh outside the State illegally and an enquiry has been ordered to take disciplinary action against the concerned District Supply officer and charges have also been made and the enquiry is pending. ( 14 ) WHETHER the alteration of the destination in the release certificates is legal or illegal it relates to the levy free rice alone that was already transported and if there is any violation in respect of the levy free rice, the said rice was alone liable for the seizure and confiscation apart from initiating criminal action under Section 7 of the E. C. Act, but that is nothing to do with the stocks seized from the mills of the petitioners. The so-called enquiry and the initiation of the criminal action cannot give rise to action for the seizure and confiscation of the stocks seized from the mills as the Levy Order is not violated in respect of the seized stocks in question. ( 15 ) CLAUSE 14 deals with the powers of entry, search and seizure. Clause 14 of the levy order is as follows:"14. Powers of entry, seam, and seizure:- (1) The enforcement Officer may, with a view to securing compliance with this Order or to satisfy himself that this order has been complied with:- (a) inspect or cause to be inspected any book or document or accounts as well as any stock of rice or paddy or broken rice belonging to or under the control of a miller or dealer; (b) require any person to give any information in his possession without respect to any undertaking or business for production or manufacture of rice for purchase, sale or storage for sale of rice or paddy or broken rice; (c) stop and search forthwith, with such aid or assistance as may be necessary, any person or vehicle or vessel or animal used or suspected of being used for delivery of rice or paddy or broken rice from the mill or other premises of the miller for dealer where, he has reason to believe, rice or paddy or broken rice is stored; (d) enter and search, with such aid or assistance as may be necessary, such mill or other premises; (e) seize and remove, with such aid or assistance as may be necessary: (i) any stock of rice or paddy in respect of which or part of which, he has reason to believe, a contravention of any of the provisions of this Order has been or is being or is about to be committed. (ii ). . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . ( 16 ) SRI E. Manohar learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said levy order has been made in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the E. C. Act for the maintenance of the supply of rice and for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fait prices. Wherever an essential commodity is seized in pursuance of the order made under Section 3, a report of such seizure shall without unreasonable delay be made to the Collector and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may if he thinks it expedient to directing the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection therefrom and if he has satisfied that there have been a contravention of the order, he may order for confiscation of the essential commodities so seized under Section 6-A of the E. C. Act. Sections 6-A to 6-D provides for confiscation of essential commodities seized for contravention of any of the orders made under Section 3 of the Act after issuing a show-cause notice under Section 6-B of the act. Section 7 deals with the penalties who contravene any of the orders made under section 3 making them punishable. Section 7 is penal provision but whereas Sections 6-A to 6-D deal with the confiscation of the essential commodities, which contravened the provisions of the orders under Section 3. ( 17 ) IT is stated that none of the petitioners have contravened the levy order in respect of the stock of the rice or paddy or broken rice, which was seized. Admittedly, there was no contravention of levy order in respect of the stocks, which are seized, in order to be confiscated. It is further stated that criminal cases were registered in different crime Nos. 56 to 149 for the alleged alteration of the release certificates but the stocks covered by the said release certificates and the stocks lying in the mill which have been duly accounted for and nothing to do with the transported stock under the release certificates. It is further stated that criminal cases were registered in different crime Nos. 56 to 149 for the alleged alteration of the release certificates but the stocks covered by the said release certificates and the stocks lying in the mill which have been duly accounted for and nothing to do with the transported stock under the release certificates. It is stated that for the so-called alleged alteration of the place of destination in the release certificate in respect of the levy free rice which was already transported, the authorities not only seized the rice, but also seized paddy and broken rice where there was no violation of any clauses of the levy order. ( 18 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is no contravention of any of the provisions of the levy order in respect of the paddy, rice and broken rice seized from the mill and sought to be confiscated. The alleged contravention is only with regard to the alteration in the release certificate with regard to its destination. Therefore, it is submitted that the stock of the rice, paddy and broken rice in respect of which there was no contravention cannot be seized as there was no reason to believe or any contravention of the provisions of the Control Order in respect of the said seized stock and, therefore, the seizure itself is illegal and hence the illegally seized stock cannot be confiscated under Section 6-A of the Act. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a division Bench judgment of this Court in p. Ramachandra Chetty v. Secretary, Ministry food, Government of India1 wherein while considering a similar Clause 11 (d) of A. P. Food Grains Dealers Licencing Order, it was held that the reason to believe is a condition precedent to vest any jurisdiction in the officers either to enter the premises or to make any search. In the absence of any such reasonable belief, the entry and the consequential search has to be vitiated. It was held in the said case that subsequent to acquisition of any other material to justify the conclusions of existence of any such reasonable belief would not be any avail nor would it justify the seizure or search or even the entry. It was held in the said case that subsequent to acquisition of any other material to justify the conclusions of existence of any such reasonable belief would not be any avail nor would it justify the seizure or search or even the entry. In the instant case, the earlier so- called contravention of the levy order by reason of alteration in the release certificate will not give rise to any power to the authorities under Clause 14 to enter and search the said mill and seize and remove the stocks of rice, broken rice and paddy in question in respect of which there was no contravention of any of the provisions of the levy order and, therefore, there was no reason to believe that the stocks in respect of which has been seized have been contravened any of the provisions of the levy order. Unless there is a reason to believe that a contravention of any provision of the levy order has been committed or is being or about to be committed, the officers cannot have any reason to believe for such contravention of the provisions of the levy order in respect of the stocks in question and seize the same. The stocks already transported are different and distinct of the stocks found in the mill in respect of which there was no contravention of levy order. Without giving any reason whatsoever, the respondents have simply stated that it is not correct to argue that the stocks confiscated are not attracted any of the contravention of the Control Order. The reason given is that the stocks in a mill are always in the state of continuous movement stocks available on the spot alone will get attracted for the contravention if any committed by a licensee as otherwise there would be no check on dealers such as the petitioners herein. If the understanding of the respondent is taken into account, the Clause 14 (1) (e) becomes redundant, irrelevant and meaningless. Clause 14 (1) (e) specifically stipulates that unless there is a contravention of the stocks of rice or paddy or broken rice or part of it has been committed or being committed, there cannot be any reason to enter and search the mill and seize the same. Clause 14 (1) (e) specifically stipulates that unless there is a contravention of the stocks of rice or paddy or broken rice or part of it has been committed or being committed, there cannot be any reason to enter and search the mill and seize the same. The legislation has been made empowering the enforcement Officer to enter, search and seize whenever the contravention of any of the provisions of the levy order has been contravened, committed or being committed or about to be committed in respect of any stock of rice, paddy or broken rice, which is sought to be seized and removed, the same cannot be seized or confiscated. There was no reason or any right for the authorities to enter and make a search and seize and remove the stocks of rice or paddy or the broken rice in respect of which there was no contravention of any of the levy order that was committed by the petitioners. There was no reason to believe for the so-called contravention of any of the provisions of the levy orders in respect of the stocks seized which are sought to be confiscated and, therefore, the action of the respondents in seizing and confiscating the stocks in question is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. ( 19 ) KARNATAKA High Court in the case of s. M. Seth v. State of Karnataka held that where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto (rice, paddy and broken rice in this case), the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order for confiscation. It is further held that if there was a contravention in respect of the stocks, the same could be seized as well as confiscated under Section 6-A, but in respect of the stocks where there was no contravention, the same cannot be seized nor confiscated under Section 6-A. A Division Bench decision of the Calcutta high Court reported in Abdur Rahaman v. The State was also referred wherein it was held that before any property or commodity could be forfeited to the State, it must be established that an offence in connection therewith was in fact committed. If no offence was committed in respect of that property, the forfeiture itself would be illegal. If no offence was committed in respect of that property, the forfeiture itself would be illegal. ( 20 ) IN the instant case, admittedly, there is no contravention in respect of the stocks seized from the mills of the petitioners. The so-called contravention was only in respect of the rice, which was already transported outside the State pursuant to the release certificates. The charge against the petitioners is that the release certificates in respect of levy free rice was transported outside the State by altering the destination in the release certificates and, therefore, criminal cases have been rightly registered for prosecuting the petitioners under Sec. 7 of the E. C. Act, but the seized goods in respect of which there was no contravention of the levy order made under Section 3 cannot be seized or confiscated. ( 21 ) UNDER Section 6-A, the seized stocks are liable for confiscation only if the collector satisfied about the violation of the control Order. Admittedly, there is no violation of the Control Order in respect of the seized stocks from the mills of the petitioners. The Levy Order empowers the enforcement Officer to enter and search the mill and even seize and remove the stock of rice, paddy and broken rice if there is any contravention in respect of the said stocks is committed or being committed or is about to be committed. The expression reason to believe has been interpreted by the Courts mean that even though formation of opinion may be subject to but it must be based on material on record, it cannot be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. It is, thus, a check on exercise of powers to seize the goods. The respondents have lost sight that the stocks are liable to be confiscated only if the collector is satisfied about the violation of the Control Orders. Admittedly, there was no violation of the Control Orders in respect of the stocks seized and confiscated. It is, thus, a check on exercise of powers to seize the goods. The respondents have lost sight that the stocks are liable to be confiscated only if the collector is satisfied about the violation of the Control Orders. Admittedly, there was no violation of the Control Orders in respect of the stocks seized and confiscated. ( 22 ) WHILE dealing with the similar control Order made under Section 3 of the e. C. Act, a Division Bench of the Delhi High court in Hindustan Aluminium v. Controller, aluminium held that only if the seizure is valid, the Collector would get the jurisdiction to go into the question whether there has been any contravention of the control Order in respect of the whole or portion of the goods seized, the Collector cannot go on with the enquiry under sec. 6-A and 6-B when the seizure itself is illegal. In the instant case, if there was any contravention of the rice transported under the release certificate, it was always open for the respondents to seize and confiscate the goods which are alleged to have been transported outside the State by altering the release certificates but the alleged contravention of the so-called stocks which were already transported outside the State, the accounted stock of the mill cannot be seized and confiscated. However, for the alleged contravention of the transportation of the paddy under the release certificate, criminal cases have been registered and it is open for the respondents to take appropriate penal action under Section 7 of the E. C. Act against the millers but the stocks in question in respect of which there was no contravention of the levy order which are illegally seized cannot be confiscated. ( 23 ) THE seizure of the accounted stocks in question from the mills of the petitioners is illegal, therefore, they cannot be confiscated. Accordingly, I hold that the confiscation of the seized stocks in question for the alleged contravention of the stocks which were already transported under the release certificate is illegal and arbitrary. Confiscation orders are accordingly set aside and the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.