JUDGMENT I. Mahanty, J. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner-Sri G.Nageswar Patra, partner of M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders, Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam seeking to challenge the order of confiscation dated 12.10.1990 passed by the Collector, Ganjam under Annexure-9 as well as the order dated 18.6.1994 passed by the Additional Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department in Appeal Case No.43 of 1990 under Annexure-10 dismissing the same and thereby confirming the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, Ganjam. 2. The facts of the present case in brief is that the petitioner-G.Nageswar Patra is one of the partners of a registered firm in the name and style “M/s.Shyam Sundar Traders”, Berhampur in the district of Ganjam. The said partnership is found under Section 185 of the Income Tax Act and has been duly assessed from time to time. It is also averred that the firm M/s.Shyam Sundar Traders has been doing business on the strength of the licence bearing No.108/78 granted under the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licencing) Order, 1977 (in short ‘the Control Order’) and the said licence was being renewed from time to time. The petitioner had applied for renewal of licence in the year 1988-89 and after such application was made at the appropriate time, the licence was not renewed nor any order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner. Accordingly, for the years, 1989-90 and 1990-91, the petitioner duly made applications for renewal like in the previous years and continued his business of pulses and edible oil seeds on the bona fide understanding that the petitioner was legally entitled since the applications of renewal made earlier have not been rejected by the licencing authority. 3. It appears that the petitioner-firm took another house on rent on 10.4.1990 from Sri Sheo-Bhagawan Ram Gopal Mundra at Aska Road to store the goods and accordingly informed the Collector, Ganjam on 10.4.1990 of the said factum. This letter addressed to the Collector, Ganjam was received by the Berhampur Civil Supply Office on the same day. Copy of the said letter was also posted to the Collector on the same day with a request to effect necessary changes in the licence for storing the commodities in the new godown and to add such address in the licence, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3. 4. Copy of the said letter was also posted to the Collector on the same day with a request to effect necessary changes in the licence for storing the commodities in the new godown and to add such address in the licence, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that on 14.4.1990, the petitioner moved 162 quintals of Black gram and 32 quintals of peas from their original godown at Aska Road, Berhampur and stored the same in their new godown. On the same day, i.e on 14.4.1990, it is stated that the petitioner also received further 111 bags of mustard seeds weighing 99.9 quintals from one M/s. Mahesh Trading Company, Kesinga at about 6.00 P.M. It is stated that while the said mustard seeds were being unloaded from the truck on the petitioner’s new godown, the Inspector of Supplies along with the Supervisor of Supplies, Berhampur seized 162 quintals of Blackgram, 32 quintals of peas and 99.9 quintals of Mustard seeds from the new godown at Aska Road. As a result of the seizure effected by the Inspector of Supplies, final orders directing confiscation of the seized articles under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 came to be passed by the Collector, Ganjam vide order dated 12th October, 1990 finding that the petitioner had indulged in trading and business without a valid licence and storing pulses, oilseeds exceeding 10 quintals is in contravention of Clause-3 of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oilseeds, Edible Oil Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977. 5. The petitioner against the order of the Collector preferred an appeal before the Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which came to be registered as Appeal Case No.43 of 1990. This appeal came to be rejected by the lower appellate authority by order dated 18.6.1994 thereby confirming the order of confiscation passed by the Collector based on a finding that even if it is accepted that the seized stock belonged to M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders and the said Firm shall be deemed to be having a valid licence as the renewal application were pending and that the godown was an authorized godown, contravention of Clause 3(i) and 12(i) of the Control Order stand established. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the order of confiscation under Annexure-9 as well as dismissal of appeal under Annexure-10, inter alia, on the ground that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders had a valid licence and necessary application for renewal till 1991 was pending with the Licencing Authority and no action had been taken against M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders on that basis. Admittedly, the seized stock belonged to the M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders. Insofar as violation of Clause-3(i) and 12(i) of the Control Order is concerned, since it is not the case of the prosecution that the godown from which the commodities were seized, was placed on the business of the petitioner was merely a place of storage, no question of stock position and price of the commodities were required to be assessed there. M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders was carried out its business at its original godown located at Holding No.476 and the godown from which the seizure was effected, was a new godown taken on hire four days prior to the seizure and necessary intimation has also been issued to the Civil Supplies Office as well as the Collector four days prior to the seizure. Therefore, no mens-rea could be attached to the storage of essential commodities at the new godown. Since the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that he had the necessary authority to store such commodity at the new godown and since he had informed the licencing authority of having hired the new godown for such storage purpose, there was no illegality on such conduct. Since the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that he had the necessary authority to store such commodity at the new godown and since he had informed the licencing authority of having hired the new godown for such storage purpose, there was no illegality on such conduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegation of violation of Clause-12(1) of the Control Order to maintain accounts of the pulses and edible oil is unsubstantiated since admittedly, the goods in question has been seized at the time when the mustard seeds were being unloaded from the truck at the new godown at Aska Road on 14.4.1990 while the petitioner was a licensee as required to maintain daily accounts, yet, at the same time, the necessary bills under which the mustard seeds was purchased was produced before the Inspector of Supplies and since unloading of the goods had not been completed at the time of raid took place, the petitioner had no opportunity to endorse the said goods in its books of accounts at the time of raid took place. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the alleged violation of Clause-3(i)(ii)(iii) is merely technical and the impugned order cannot be legally justified and the same ought to be quashed. He further submits that on the finding of the lower appellate court that there had been contravention of Clause-3(i) and 12(i) of the Control Order is totally misconceived since the lower appellate authority itself in Paragraph-3 of the said judgment found that the petitioner’s application for renewal of licence is pending and no action can be taken against M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders for not having valid licence on the date of seizure. Since the lower appellate authority came into the aforesaid finding on the Firm, there is no question of a partner of the said firm is guilty while the Firm is held to be not guilty. He further submits that the fact of storing the commodity in a new godown had been duly intimated to the licencing authority within 48 hours of such storage as required under the terms of the licence and the licencing authority had been admittedly, informed on 10.4.1990 by serving a copy of the letter to the office of the Civil Supplies as well as the posting of the said letter to the Collector on the same day. The seizure took place on 14.4.1990 and that too about 7.30 P.M. and the said place of seizure was an additional godown taken by the petitioner for storage only. It is averred by the petitioner that the books of accounts of M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders had at their original place of business and since the same had been questioned on that day on account of Maha Vishuva Sankranti, it had been practicable or possible to produce the accounts for inspection. 7. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the requirement of Section 6-A of the E.C.Act has not been complied with strictly by the prosecution since the Inspector of Supplies who effected seizure all the materials on 14.4.1990, submitted a report of seizure before the Sub-Collector, Berhampur on 16.4.1990 and not before the Collector, Ganjam as required under the said provision. It is asserted that ultimately, the Collector passed final orders of confiscation, which cannot wash away the illegality occurred in the initiation of the proceeding itself. Admittedly, no report by the Inspector was effected seizure to the Collector and hence, the initiation of the proceeding itself is invalid. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the following cases: (i) M/s. Gouri Shankar Traders, Rayagada v. State, 1993 (I) OLR-66 (ii) M/s.Ganesh Traders v. State of Orissa and others, 74 (1992) C.L.T. 330. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently supported the order of the confiscation as well as the order passed by the lower appellate authority. He asserted that the mere application for renewal of licence and/or mere intimation to the Civil Supplies Office or the Collector of hiring of a new godown, cannot absolve the petitioner from the requirement of a licence to trade pulses and seeds nor does it authorize the petitioner to operate a new godown for which no expressive permission had been obtained from the licencing authority. 10. 10. Considering the fact situation that arises in the present case and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and after having taken into all the contentions advanced, the undisputed fact that merges to the fact that the petitioner-Firm in the name and style M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders is a registered partnership firm under the Income Tax Act, is admittedly a licensee under the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licencing) Order, 1977 since 1982-83. The petitioner had sought for renewal in the year 1988-89, 89-90 and 90-91. Although the renewal applications were duly made, the same were not issued within the time and kept pending for orders. Seizures in this case was effected on 14.4.1990 and four days prior thereto, i.e. on 10.4.1990, the petitioner’s partnership Firm has duly intimated to the Collector from the office of the Civil Supplies Officer as well as by post of the additional godown for the storage purpose. No responsibility whatsoever has been made either by the Collector or the Civil Supplies Office for such intimation and four days thereafter when certain goods/commodities were removed to the new godown in the evening of 14.4.1990 which was holiday on account of Maha Vishuva Sankranti and raid was taken place leading to such seizure. Clearly, the lower appellate authority has held in Paragraph-2 of its judgment under Annexure10 to the writ petition that M/s. S.S.Traders had a valid licence till 1988 for dealing in pulses, edible oil seeds and edible oils and applications for renewal for the subsequent years had been duly filed and “since no decision on renewal of application was communicated, the licence was deemed to have been renewed and no action for carrying on business without a licence can be taken”. Therefore, once the allegation of non-possession of licence against M/s. Shyam Sundar Traders has been wiped out by the aforesaid finding and only the thing remains as to whether the petitioner had failed to maintain appropriate books of accounts at the new site of the godown on the date of seizure. 11. In the case of M/s. Gouri Shankar Traders, Rayagada (supra), the Bench presided over by Hon’ble Shri Justice L.Rath categorically came to hold that this Court relied upon the judgment of the case of Muralilal Jhunjhunwala v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 515 . 11. In the case of M/s. Gouri Shankar Traders, Rayagada (supra), the Bench presided over by Hon’ble Shri Justice L.Rath categorically came to hold that this Court relied upon the judgment of the case of Muralilal Jhunjhunwala v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 515 . In the said case, the dealer had been granted a licence for one year and applied for subsequent years by depositing the necessary fees and was carried out the business under the bona fide believe that he had licence and his application has neither been rejected nor any defect of the same has been pointed out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court came to held that “the appellant was legitimately entitled to the licence which has been unreasonably withheld from him. It would be indeed wrong on the part of the Licensing Authority to prosecute the appellant”. 12. The next point comes for consideration is the requirement on the allegation of non-compliance of the requirement of Section 6-A of the E.C. Act which is quoted hereunder: “6-A. Confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils: (1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency-town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of: (a) The essential commodity so seized; (b) Any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) Any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may: xx xx (i) Order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) Where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction. xx xx” 13. On a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear therefrom that the authority effecting seizure has to report such seizure without unreasonable delay to the Collector of the district and it is only the Collector of such district if he thinks it expedient may direct the commodity so seized to be produced before him for inspection and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may direct its confiscation. The term “Collector” is defined in the E.C. Act under Section 2(i)(a) which has been inserted in the Amendment Act, 1992 of 1976 giving it an expanded meaning by including the Additional Collector and any such officer, not below the rank of Sub-divisional Officer, as may be authorized by the Collector to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under the Act. Therefore, ordinarily wherever the word ‘Collector’ is used under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act as per the definition, it would mean not only the Collector of the district but also such other officers who are authorized within the scope of the definition to function as the Collector. 14. In the case of M/s.Ganesh Traders (supra), the aforesaid contention was considered by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon’ble Shri Justice L.Rath (as His Lordship the then was) in Paragraph-4 thereof which is quoted hereinbelow: “4. Section 6-A directing confiscation of commodities was introduced by Act 25 of 1966. 14. In the case of M/s.Ganesh Traders (supra), the aforesaid contention was considered by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon’ble Shri Justice L.Rath (as His Lordship the then was) in Paragraph-4 thereof which is quoted hereinbelow: “4. Section 6-A directing confiscation of commodities was introduced by Act 25 of 1966. The provision originally provided for production of the seized commodity before the Collector which was amended by Act 92 of 1976 substituting production of the seized commodity before the Collector to that of making a report of seizure only to him and by the very Amendment Act the definition of “Collector” as referred to above was introduced by expanding the concept of the word “Collector”. The Statement of objects and Reasons of Act 25 of 1966 stated, so far as section 6-A is concerned, that the purpose of insertion of the new provision was for confiscation of commodities by the Collector of the district. The subsequent enlargement of the definition of the word “Collector” and use of both the expressions “Collector of the district” and “Collector” in section 6-A(1) would go against the interpretation that the power of confiscation was specifically reserved only for the District Collector. The provision consists of two parts: (1) making the report and (2) directing the seized commodity to be produced for inspection and the power, if satisfaction is reached of contravention of the order, to direct confiscation of the seized commodity. Undoubtedly, so far as the first part is concerned, the authority contemplated is the District Collector, he alone having been so named in the provision. So far as the second part is concerned, there is no binding necessity that such function must be carried out by the same District Collector himself. An additional Collector or a Sub-divisional Officer may also be authorized as per the definition of “Collector” to function as the Collector. Such authorization may follow either by general or a specific order. It is possible for the Collector to authorize any of such officers to carry on the functions of inspection and confiscation, if necessary, after receipt of the report. Such authorization may follow either by general or a specific order. It is possible for the Collector to authorize any of such officers to carry on the functions of inspection and confiscation, if necessary, after receipt of the report. Thus after receipt of the report as to seizure, the Collector may himself, if necessary, direct production of the commodity before him for inspection and himself continue the confiscation proceeding if he so decides because of the peculiar circumstance or importance of the case, or he may after receipt of the report and perusal of the same direct that the follow-up actions may be taken by other officers, authorized by him to act as the Collector. For the same purpose it is also possible for him to pass a general order. So far as the power of directing disposal of the commodity under sub-section (2) is concerned, the position is the same that the power can be exercised by the Collector of the district if he so desires or where on perusal of the report he directs the other authorities, the power can also be exercised by them. Giving any other meaning to the provisions would render the amendment to the definition of the word “Collector” meaningless. The conclusion so reached is also fortified by the very statements of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act 92 of 1976 which was to the following effect:- In order to intensify the drive against hoarders and profiteers, it is proposed to provide that the powers of the Collector may also be exercised by an Additional Collector and such other officers not below the rank of a Sub-divisional Officer, as may be authorized by the Collector. The definition of the expression “Collector” is being inserted in the Act to achieve the said object.” 15. In view of the aforesaid authoritative conclusion of this Court where in the present case, admittedly, the report of seizure has not been placed before the District Collector and, therefore, the mandatory requirement of the first part of Section 6-A has clearly not been satisfied. In view of the aforesaid authoritative conclusion of this Court where in the present case, admittedly, the report of seizure has not been placed before the District Collector and, therefore, the mandatory requirement of the first part of Section 6-A has clearly not been satisfied. Although other contentions have been raised in course of the argument since I am of the considered view that the mandatory requirement of Section 6-A of the E.C. Act has not been complied with as determined by this Court in the case of M/s.Ganesh Traders (supra), this Court has no longer necessary to deal with the contentions. Accordingly, the order of confiscation dated 12.10.1990 passed by the Collector, Ganjam under Annexure-9 as well as the order dated 18.6.1994 passed by the Additional Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department in Appeal Case No.43 of 1990 under Annexure-10 is quashed and direct the appropriate authority to grant consequential relief to the petitioner. 16. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.