G. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dt. 10. 5. 83.
(2.) THE facts of this case are that on 19. 9. 79 the Enforcement Inspector inspected the business premises of the petitioner and found that 100 quintals of Dal had not been entered into the relevant stock register. THEn proceedings u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated against the petitioner and Dal was ordered to be confiscated. Against that order of confiscation the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge and the appeal was accepted and the lower court was directed to pass fresh order after hearing the parties THE lower court heard the parties and again passed an order dated 12. 10. 82 where by confiscation of 15 quintals of Dal was directed. Against this order the petitioner presented the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur and vide his order dated 10. 5. 83; the Sessions Judge held that the appeal is not maintainable before him and dismissed the appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court has come to this conclusion that an appeal against the order of the Addl. Collector Bharatpur, lies before the State Govt. There is an amendment in the Essential Commodities Act, 1981 and by Amending the Act of 1981 the appeal against the order of confiscating of Authority u/s 6a of the E. C. Act lies before the State Govt. The learned Sessions Judge, in view of this Amendment has held that no appeal against the order of confiscation u/s 6-A of the E. C. Act lies before the Judl. authority. He has also agreed to this point that such petition lies before the State Govt. With this finding he has held that the appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed. I have given my consideration to the decision given by the learned Sessions Judge. When it is held that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the appeal is not maintainable before him proper forum to entertain the appeal is the State Government, it was for the Sessions Judge to return the appeal to the appellant for the proper authority. He has erred in dismissing the appeal. When he has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, he has no jurisdiction to decide and dispose off the appeal. By dismissing the appeal he has disposed off the appeal without having jurisdiction to entertain it, hence the order of the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect. The revision petition is accepted. The order of dismissal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, dt. 10. 5. 83 is set-aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to return the appeal to the petitioner for presentation before the proper authority. .;