ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28-3-2002 (Annexure-B) passed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short), confirming the order of the original authority dated 19-12-1995 (Annexure-C) to the extent of confiscating 262 quintals of paddy and 390 quintals of rice. The petitioner has also challenged the consequent notice dated 5-8-2002 (Annexure-A) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, respondent 2 demanding payment of Rs. 2,43,200/- being the value of the confiscated foodgrains. 2. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order and the notice Annexures-A and B. 3. Both the original and the Appellate Authorities have found that the petitioner had contravened certain provisions of the two Control Orders passed under the Essential Commodities Act, namely Clauses 5 and 6 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts, Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1981 and Clauses 9 and 10 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986. This being a finding of fact based on the material on record, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the said finding in a writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. However, Sri B.R. Sathenahalli, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the penalty is disproportionate to the nature of contravention of the control orders and in support of his submission, he strongly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Nagendra Rao and Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh and invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the said judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as follows.- "5……..But what needs to be mentioned is that since the power is very wide as a person violating the control orders is to be visited with serious consequences leading not only to the confiscation of the seized goods, packages or vessel or vehicle in which such essential commodity is found or is conveyed or carried, but is liable to be prosecuted and penalised under Section 7 of the Act, it is inherent in it that those who are entrusted with responsibility to implement it should act with reasonableness, fairness and to promote the purpose and objective of the Act. Further, it should not be lost sight of that the goods seized are liable to be confiscated only if the collector is satisfied about violation of the Control Orders. The language of the Section and its setting indicate that every contravention cannot entail confiscation. That is why the section uses the word 'may'. A trader indulging in black-marketing or selling adulterated goods etc., should not, in absence of any violation, be treated at par with technical violations such as failure to put up the price list etc., or even discrepancies in stock". (emphasis supplied) 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner' submits that the violations found by the authorities were only technical violations such as not producing the stock register, not putting up of the price list and the stock board and not submitting the fortnightly return to the licensing authority and hence, according to Counsel, the extreme penalty of confiscation of the entire stock of the paddy and rice seized was not warranted. 6. I find force in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 7. It is relevant to state that the power to confiscate under Section 6-A of the Act is discretionary. But the discretion should be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The authority has to look into the nature of the violation, the object with which it was done and the circumstances under which it was done. The facts and circumstances of each case should be taken into account by the authority concerned while exercising the discretion vested in it to determine the penalty to be imposed. 8. In my opinion, the penalty of confiscation of the entire stock levied by the authorities appears to be disproportionate to the nature of the contravention proved. The contraventions appear to be technical in nature. The confiscation of the entire stock of rice and paddy seized in neither justified nor warranted on the facts of the case. Accordingly, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority insofar as it relates to the extent of penalty to be imposed. 9. The contraventions appear to be technical in nature. The confiscation of the entire stock of rice and paddy seized in neither justified nor warranted on the facts of the case. Accordingly, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority insofar as it relates to the extent of penalty to be imposed. 9. In the result, I make the following order.--• (i) the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28-3-2002 (Annexure-B) insofar as it relates to imposition of the penalty of confiscation is set aside; (ii) the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority-respondent 1 to reconsider the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner in the light of the observations made above; (iii) such reconsideration shall be done by the Appellate Authority within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.