JUDGMENT Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. The petitioner in both these applications is Lowa Tanti alias Loba Tanti. He has filed the two applications, one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the other under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code'), in the following circumstances : 2. On the 6th August, 1974 a flying squad, consisting of Shree S.N. Kanth, Deputy Collector, Baghmara, Shree K. K. Sharma, Sub-Inspector of Police, Shree Nizam Khan, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Katras Police-Station, Shree T. P. Jaiswal, Assistant Marketing Officer, a Supply-Inspector and two constables, conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner. On search, 142 bags of food grains, such as rice, paddy and gram, weighing 132 quintals 34 Kgs. 500 grams, were recovered from the house of the petitioner. They further discovered that the petitioner was not holding any licence under the Bihar Food-grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order), and, as such, he was liable to be prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The entire stock was seized, and, after seizure, a first information report was lodged before the Officer-incharge, Katras Police-Station, stating therein as to how the informant, along with other officers, first went to Katras Police-Station and from there, along with the aforesaid Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector and the Police constables, went to the house of the petitioner and found the aforesaid bags of food-grains on search, which were seized. Towards the end of the report it was stated that those seized bags of food-grains were being deposited with the said Officer-in-Charge of the Police-Station for proper custody. Copies of the first information report and the seizure list etc. were forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghmara. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate mentioned about the receipt of those documents in the order, dated the 8th August, 1974, The accused-petitioner was also produced on that date before the said Magistrate and was remanded to Jail custody by the same order. 3. It appears that a petition signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara was filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghmara on or before the 5th September, 1974. (From the records it could not be ascertained as to when actually the said petition had been filed. 3. It appears that a petition signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara was filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghmara on or before the 5th September, 1974. (From the records it could not be ascertained as to when actually the said petition had been filed. The petition is, however, signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 31st August, 1974.) In the said petition it was stated that 142 bags of food-grains had been seized from the house of the petitioner and they had been kept in custody with the Assistant Godown Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Private Ltd. at Katras (herein-after referred to as the 'Corporation') for safe custody as there was not sufficient space in the Katras P. S. Malkhana. It was also stated that, in order to save the food-grains from decay and deterioration, the stock of rice and paddy be released to the State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation at procurement price and the gram be released at the prevailing market rate of Rs 250/- per quintal. It was further stated that the price will be deposited by the Corporation through challan. 4. An application was also filed on behalf of the petitioner before the said Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the 5th September 1974 for release of those bags of food-grains saying that the petitioner was an agriculturist having agricultural lands and those food-grains had been seized from the house of the petitioner, and, as such, they should be released to the petitioner. 5. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate heard the petitioner as well as the Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, on the question of release of the seized food-grains and passed an order on the 5th September, 1974 saying that the food-grains be sold through fair price shop to card-holders on the condition that the Corporation should first of all deposit the price of the food-grains in question in the State Treasury and obtain order for release after submitting challan through the Police concerned. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate also directed that a copy of his order be forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Katras P. S. as also to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara for information and necessary action. 6. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate also directed that a copy of his order be forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Katras P. S. as also to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara for information and necessary action. 6. Being aggrieved by this order of the 5th September, 1974, the petitioner filed the above mentioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2458 of 1974, which was admitted by this Court on the 23rd September, 1974, and the operation of the impugned order was directed to remain stayed pending the hearing of that application. 7. The Collector, Dhanbad, after more than three months of the passing of the aforesaid order, dated the 5th September, 1974, by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, and while the Criminal miscellaneous application was pending before this Court, started a confiscation proceeding on the 20th December 1974 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 6B of the Act, giving rise to Case No. 75 of 1974. In accordance with the requirement of Section 6B of the Act, a notice of the confiscation proceeding was given to the petitioner, who appeared and showed cause, saying that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had already passed an order for sale of the seized food-grains to the Corporation, and that against the said order he had filed an application before this Court for quashing the said order and for a direction to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate that the seized food-grains should be released to the petitioner, and, as such, the confiscation proceeding was not maintainable. The petitioner also took the stand before the Collector that the food-grains were the produce of his agricultural lands and, in view of the proviso to section 6A, no order for confiscation could be passed in respect thereof. By an order, dated the 6th of January, 1975, the Collector held that any order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in respect of the seized food-grains or the pendency of the criminal miscellaneous application before this Court was no bar to the exercise of his power under section 6A of the Act, and he could pass an order for confiscation in terms of section 6A. In that very order, he also held that the food-grains seized had not been produced by the petitioner. Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17 of 1975 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the aforesaid order of the Collector. 8. In that very order, he also held that the food-grains seized had not been produced by the petitioner. Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17 of 1975 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the aforesaid order of the Collector. 8. As both the applications are by one and the same petitioner and the controversy in both of them is in relation to the same seized food-grains, these applications have been heard together with the consent of the parties and this Judgment will govern them both. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of confiscation passed by the Collector is illegal and without jurisdiction, because the Criminal Court had already passed a Judicial order in respect of the disposal of the seized food-grains, against which an application under Section 482 of the Code was pending in this Court in which an order for stay of the operation of the said order during the pendency of the said application, had been passed by this Court. According to learned counsel, the power under section 6A of the Act, could be exercised only when no order is passed by the Criminal Court in exercise of the powers vested in such Court by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Section 6A of the Act, reads asunder:- “6A. Where essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order under section 3 in relation thereto, it may be produced, without any unreasonable delay, before 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, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized: Provided that, without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any of the provisions of this Act, no food grains or edible oilseeds seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized food-grains or edible oil seeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section.” Section 6B makes it obligatory on the part of the Collector to give notice, in writing, informing the person concerned, before an order of confiscation is passed. From a bare reference to section 6A it is obvious that the power to start a confiscation proceeding under that section has been vested in the Collector, irrespective of the fact that any prosecution has been instituted for the contravention of any order framed under section 3 of the Act, The condition precedent to the exercise of the said power is that any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of any order made under section 3 of the Act, and, if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a contravention of such order, he may confiscate the essential commodity so seized. The proviso places a restriction on the exercise of such power, if the seized article is food-grain or edible oilseed and it is proved that the person from whose custody it had been so seized is a producer thereof. As such, it has to be held that the pendency of a criminal case in respect of the contravention of any order framed under the Act, including the Licensing Order, will be no bar to the exercise of the power under section 6A. But, the question is as to whether the Collector could have started a confiscation proceeding and could have passed an order confiscating the food-grains seized, as he has purported to do in the instant case by his order, dated the 6th January, 1975, in view of the order, dated the 5th September, 1974, passed by the sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, and the order, dated the 23rd September, 1974, passed by this Court, while admitting the application under section 482 of the Code on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the 5th September, 1974. 11. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, has, firstly, urged that the order passed under section 6A of the Act, by the Collector is an appeal-able order and an appeal has been provided for under section 6C of the Act, before the Judicial authority appointed by the State Government, and the Commissioner, Chota Nagpur Division, has been appointed as the appellate authority. According to learned Standing Counsel the writ application should be dismissed on this ground alone, because the petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy provided under the Act, itself. According to learned Standing Counsel the writ application should be dismissed on this ground alone, because the petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy provided under the Act, itself. It has been next urged on behalf of the State that the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed on the 5th September, 1974, directing the seized food-grains to be sold to the Corporation itself is illegal and without jurisdiction, and, as such, that order could not stand in the way of the Collector passing the order under section 6A of the Act. 12. Section 6C of the Act, lays down that any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under section 6A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to the Judicial authority appointed by the State Government concerned. There can be no doubt that the petitioner could have availed of this remedy. But, the writ application which was filed on the 21st January, 1975 was admitted by this Court on the 24th January, 1975 and the rule was made returnable within three months, and by now, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal by the petitioner against the order of the Collector has expired. Apart from that, it is well established by several authorities of the Supreme Court that alternative remedy is not a bar to; the exercise of power by this Court... under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Whether such an application should not be entertained, as there is an alternative remedy, should be considered at the time of admission of the writ application, and once the writ application is admitted and beard on merits, it should not be rejected merely on that ground. In this connection reference may be made to the case of L. Hirday Narain V. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 33 In that view of the matter. In this connection reference may be made to the case of L. Hirday Narain V. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 33 In that view of the matter. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the writ application should be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy provided under the Act, itself for setting aside for modifying the order passed by the Collector More-over the Criminal Miscellaneous application has been filed by the petitioner against the order, dated the 5th September, 1974 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was pending before this Court when the order, dated the 6th January, 1975 was passed by the Collector and, in my opinion, it is proper to hear both the applications together. 13. Now, the only question that remains to be determined is as to whether the order, dated the 5th September, 1974, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate could be ignored by the Collector while passing the order of confiscation under section 6A of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the Essential Commodities Act, is a special Act, and whenever there is a conflict the provisions of the Act, will prevail over any provision of the Code. In this connection he has drawn our attention to section 5 of the Code, which reads as follows:- “5. Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special Jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.” Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the order, dated the 5th September, 1974, is not sanctioned by any provision of the Code. 14. Chapter XXXIV of Code contains provisions regarding disposal of property. On a plain reading of section 451 it appears that when any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make appropriate order for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Section 452 is applicable after the conclusion of the inquiry or trials. As such, sections 451 and 452 are obviously not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on section 457 of the Code, which reads as under :- “457(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any Police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.” It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this section is to apply in respect of custody and disposal of properties which have been seized by the police-officers before any inquiry or trial begins, and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed the said order in exercise of the powers under section 457. Learned Standing Counsel has contended, On the other hand, that section 457 is applicable only when there is a seizure by any police officer. In the present case there has been no seizure by any police officer; the seizure was by the Deputy Collector, along with other officers of the Supply Department. But, from the first information report and the order, dated the 6th January, 1975, passed by the Collector, it appears that the flying squad first went to Katras Police-Station and thereafter they proceeded to the house of the petitioner, along with two Police-Officers and two constables. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that the seizure was not by the Police-Officers. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that the seizure was not by the Police-Officers. Moreover the order for sale to the Food Corporation was made by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the 5th September, 1974, as was prayed for by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara by filing an application to that effect. In the eye of law, that application will be deemed to have been filed on behalf of the State and, in my opinion it is not now open to the State to urge before us that the Order itself was illegal and without jurisdiction liable to be ignored, without filing any application before this Court. The learned Standing Counsel has referred to certain decisions in this context. They are The State V. Abdul Rashid AIR 1967 Mys 231 and Purushottam Delji V. Emperor AIR 1944 Bom 247. 15. It will appear that in the Mysore case, before the confiscation proceeding was initiated under the Act, an application was first filed before the Criminal Court by the Sub-Inspector of Police for a direction that the seized articles should be produced before the Collector, and the learned Magistrate passed an order that the seized articles be produced before the Collector, and thereafter the confiscation proceeding was started. In my opinion, this Judgment is not at all helpful to the respondent State. If the Collector, before passing the final order confiscating the food-grains in question; had moved the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate or this Court for vacating the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the 5th September, 1974, the matter would have been different. But, instead of doing that, the Collector has ignored the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate as well as by this Court. In Purushottam Devji, it was observed that, where a statute prescribes a particular mode of enforcing a new obligation created by it, such obligation can, as a general rule, be enforced in no other manner than that provided by the statute. This case has been relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel in support of his contention that, when there is a conflict of jurisdiction between a Criminal Court and that of the Collector under section 6A of the Act, the order passed by the Collector should prevail. This case has been relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel in support of his contention that, when there is a conflict of jurisdiction between a Criminal Court and that of the Collector under section 6A of the Act, the order passed by the Collector should prevail. I do not think that any such point has been decided in that case Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, on the other hand, referred to a Judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh in Venka Anuntha Rao V. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1974 Cr. LJ 387 in support of his contention that, when there is a conflict between the provisions of section 6A of the Act, and the power of the Criminal Court under the Code, it cannot be held that, in view of section 6A of the Act, the Criminal Court, has been denuded of its power vested in it by the Code. As I have already pointed out, the power of the Collector under section 6A of the Act, for initiating confiscation proceeding is in clear terms and does not depend on any prosecution being launched for violation of any order made under section 3 of the Act. But, as was pointed out by Sahai, J. in The State V. Ramyas Thakur AIR 1964 Pat. 416 , when two authorities have been vested with power to deal with a matter under a particular circumstance, every effort should be made by both of them to avoid any collision and, to avoid the situation of passing two conflicting orders. In that connection it was observed; “Officers should avoid acting in an unseemly manner and in entering publicly into a controversy with one another. As the Sub-divisional Magistrate had passed an order whereby he had refused to release the truck on, the ground that it was a material exhibit, Mr. In that connection it was observed; “Officers should avoid acting in an unseemly manner and in entering publicly into a controversy with one another. As the Sub-divisional Magistrate had passed an order whereby he had refused to release the truck on, the ground that it was a material exhibit, Mr. Chandra could have left the parties to approach superior courts, instead of passing an order contrary to the one passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.” I am of the view that, when it was brought to the notice of the Collector that the Criminal Court had passed an order on the 5th September, 1974, against which an application was pending before this Court was to consider as to whether the seized goods could be released to the petitioner, the Collector should not have passed the final order, and, before passing the final order, should have taken steps before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate or before this Court for modification or vacation of the order in question. Accordingly, I am left with no option but to hold that the final order passed by the Collector on the 6th January 1975 is not in accordance with law, and has resulted in an apparent conflict of jurisdiction between the Criminal Court and the Collector and, as such, it is liable to be quashed by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed and the order of the Collector, dated the 6th January, 1975, is quashed. 17. So far as the criminal miscellaneous case is concerned having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 1 am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for release of the seized food-grains in his favour, and, as such, the criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. 18. It will, however, be open to the Collector to take steps for recall of the order, dated the 5th September, 1974, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, after bringing the fact to his notice that a confiscation proceeding under section 6A of the Act, has already been initiated and is still pending. It is needless to point out that, before passing the final order under section 6A of the Act, the Collector will again hear the petitioner on the question whether the said food-grains are liable to be confiscated or not. S. Ali Ahmad, J. CWJC 17/75 allowed. It is needless to point out that, before passing the final order under section 6A of the Act, the Collector will again hear the petitioner on the question whether the said food-grains are liable to be confiscated or not. S. Ali Ahmad, J. CWJC 17/75 allowed. H. L. AGRAWAL, J. I agree Cr. Mis dismissed.