BISHWANATH PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bajaj for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Agrawal, G.A.

(2.) In this application the order of confiscation dated 17-11-1997 has been impugned by the petitioner on the ground that notice was bused to the petitioner about violation of the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 but the confiscationT order shows that the Deputy Commissioner though C1.ccepted the show cause filed by the petitioner but has come to a finding there the petitioner has violated the provisions of Display Order.

(3.) From the statement made in the writ petition and the notice as also the impugned order it appears that the confiscating authority has not applied his mind to the fact that when there was allegation of violation of provision of Unification Order, the impugned order could not have been passed against him for violation of the provisions of Display Order. This is no denial of therefore that the seized articles as mentioned in Annexure are not covered by any of the provisions of Unification Order. More over, it is now well settled that the power of confiscation of essential commodity should be exercised reasonably and fairly inasmuch as every contravention of the Act does not entail the confiscation.