JUDGMENT JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. As in both the matters, common questions arise for consideration, they 25 are being considered simultaneously. 2. Both the petitions arise from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the respective appeals whereby 30 the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of confiscation. 3. The short facts are that the search 35 and seizure had taken place under the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers' (Regulation) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "Control Order of 1977"). It was found that the boards 40 were not displayed, stock register was not properly maintained and the record was also not properly maintained. Show-cause notices were issued to the concerned respondents. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without recording any reasons, on the ground that the breaches are admitted and the reply does not deserve to be accepted, directed for forfeiture of the total goods seized. The matter was carried in appeal by the concerned respondents before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The learned Sessions Judge found that the control order for which the search and seizure had taken place and for the alleged breach, the confiscation had taken place, was not in force and he also found that no reasons were recorded and therefore, he has allowed the appeal 21 by setting aside the order passed for confiscation of the goods in both the matters. It is under these circumstances, the present petitions before this Court. 4. 1 have heard Ms. Thakkar, learned APP for the State in both the matters and 1 have also heard Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in both the matters. 5. There were only two points on the basis of which the learned Session Judge has allowed the appeal. 4. 1 have heard Ms. Thakkar, learned APP for the State in both the matters and 1 have also heard Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in both the matters. 5. There were only two points on the basis of which the learned Session Judge has allowed the appeal. One was that the reasons were not recorded by 35 the Deputy Collector in the impugned order and the another was that by Removal of (Licensing requirements, Stock limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Control Order of 2002") issued by the Government of India, the Control Order of 1977 on the basis of which the alleged action was taken was not in force and therefore, there was no power to seize nor there 5 was any power to confiscate the goods. 6. On the first aspect, the learned Sessions Judge appears to be right in recording the conclusion that the reasons to were not recorded by the Deputy Collector while passing the impugned order. However, the matter does not end there because even if it is found that the reasons were not recorded, the learned .5 Sessions Judge in exercise of the judicial discretion, after setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector, ought to have remanded the matter to him for recording of the reasons and then to pass the u order. It appears that such a course was not adopted. 7. On the second aspect it appears that the alleged breach was of Control 5 Order of 1977. The said Control Order of 1977 was pertaining to the regulation of the business of the dealer inasmuch the dealer had to display the opening stock, price list, maintenance of the invoice, maintenance of the stock register, maintenance of the accounts, etc. The perusal of the said Control Order of 1977 shows that it was not pertaining to fixing any limit for holding of the stock of any of the essential articles including oil and oil seeds. The Control Order of 2002 issued by the Central Government is pertaining to the requirement for such license requirement for stock limit and the restriction of the movement of the essential articles. Clause 3 and 4 of the Control Order of 2002 reads as under :- "3. The Control Order of 2002 issued by the Central Government is pertaining to the requirement for such license requirement for stock limit and the restriction of the movement of the essential articles. Clause 3 and 4 of the Control Order of 2002 reads as under :- "3. With the coming into effect of this Order any dealer may freely buy, stock, sell, transport, distribute, dispose, acquire, use or consume any quantity of wheat, paddy/rice, coarsegrains, sugar; edible oilseeds and edible oils and shall not require a permit or license therefor under any order issued by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. The provisions of this Order shall taken effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Order made by a State Government before the commencement of this Order except as respects anything done, or omitted to be done, thereunder before such commencement." 8. The aforesaid shows that by virtue of the Control Order of 2002, the dealer would be free to buy, stock, sell, transport, distribute, and dispose of the 2 prescribed commodity including edible oil seeds and edible oils without obtaining permit or license under any provisions of the Control Order. Meaning thereby, by virtue of any Control Order issued by the State or by the Central Government previously, if the dealer is required to obtain permit or license for buying, stocking, selling, transporting or distributing of any essential commodities, such requirement was done away. The above referred clause 4 of the Control Order of 2002 makes the said aspects clear. The consequence would be that the other provisions of any other Control Order not inconsistent with the Control Order of 2002 shall continue to operate. Had the Control Order of 1977 provided for a particular limit to hold the stock for buying or selling or transportation or disposal etc. of any essential commodities, one might contend that it would not operate in view of the Control Order of 2002. But the Control Order of 1977 provides only a mode for regulation of the business of essential commodities and it is not pertaining to the requirement to hold license or permit for buying, selling or storing, etc. of any essential commodity. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that by Control Order of 2002, the effect of Control Order of 1977 is done away or lifted or avoided. of any essential commodity. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that by Control Order of 2002, the effect of Control Order of 1977 is done away or lifted or avoided. Therefore, the position would be that the Control Order of 1977 had remained in force and the matter was required to be examined on merits of the alleged breach of the Control Order of 1977. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that by Control Order of 2002, the Control Order of 1977 do not remain in force cannot be sustained. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is not that in every case, whenever there is alleged breach of Control Order, the penalty may be required to be imposed to the fullest extent. In the present case, the confiscation is of the total stocks seized and therefore also, the order passed by the Deputy Collector could I not be sustained. 11. Whereas the learned APP submitted that if the breach was admitted, the Deputy collector was justified in confiscating the goods. 12. In my view, the principles of proportionality of penalty are by now well settled. Even if there is breach, it is required for the competent Authority to apply mind on the aspects of the proportionality of the penalty or the proportionality of the quantum of the goods to be confiscated. The perusal of the alleged breach mentioned in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector shows that they are technical breach and it has not come on record that the same was intended for taking any undue benefit or with a malafide purpose of black marketing the essential commodities or otherwise. 13. This Court in the case of M/s. Govind Karsan & Co. v. State of Gujarat and others reported in 1983(1) GLR 145 has taken the view that whenever the breach is of a technical in nature, the confiscation of goods can be of a reasonable quantity. 14. Considering the facts and 31 circumstances, it appears to me that if the confiscation of the goods is maintained to the extent of 25% of the goods seized, the same would meet with the ends of justices. 35 15. 14. Considering the facts and 31 circumstances, it appears to me that if the confiscation of the goods is maintained to the extent of 25% of the goods seized, the same would meet with the ends of justices. 35 15. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside with the further observation and direction that out of the total commodities seized, 25% of the goods shall be required to be confiscated. Resultantly, the order of the Deputy Collector for confiscation of the goods shall stand maintained to the extent of 25% of the goods seized and not for any confiscation exceeding the same. 16. Petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly Rule made absolute