( 1 ) IN these writ petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioners have sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ to strike down the Karnataka Debt Relief Act of 1976 (to be hereinafter called as the 'act') and to direct respondents to forbear from proceeding with the cases in pursuance of the notice at exhibits 'a' 'b' 'c' 'e' and 'f' and to pass such other suitable orders for the return of the articles seized in all the cases. ( 2 ) COMMON questions of law and facts arise in these writ petitions and therefore they are heard together and disposed of by a common order. ( 3 ) THE 1st petitioner Aswathanarayana Setty is a cloth merchant and partner of Onkar House. He is doing money lending business holding a licence. The 2nd petitioner is a general merchant. The 3rd petitioner is a wholesale merchant in food grains and also owner of a lorry. The 4th petitioner is the divided brother of the petitioner-1 and living separately. They are income-tax and sales-tax assessees. Their case is that the Circle inspector of Police Sira, the 3rd respondent came to their house on 10-9-76 at about 5-45 a. m. along with the Sheristedar of Madhugiri Taluk Office and his subordinates. They wanted to enter the house of the 1st petitioner in order to search and seize the articles in the house. The 1st petitioner informed them that he had not kept any pledged articles with him and also requested the 3rd respondent to show the authority under which he has come to search the home of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent did not show any authority to search or seize the articles in the house. The 1st petitioner refused to accede to the request of the 3rd respondent and others. When the 3rd respondent threatened him with dire consequence if he was not allowed to search and seize the articles in the house, the members of the family became panicky and tha petitioner was forced to comply with the demand of the Circle Inspector to enter the house. The 3rd respondent entered the house, searched all the almirahs after obtaining the keys from the petitioners. He also searched the iron safe and seized all the gold and silver oranaments and alsa cash of Rs. The 3rd respondent entered the house, searched all the almirahs after obtaining the keys from the petitioners. He also searched the iron safe and seized all the gold and silver oranaments and alsa cash of Rs. 10,300 and odd, out of which Ra. 8,800 belonged to the firm and the rest was his personal cash. Then the 3rd respondent searched the Pooja Room and seized all the gold ornaments belonging to the petitionor as well tat his family and also seized silver articles and one pronote of the value of Rs. 8,000 of one N. Hanumanthappa a bus owner of Madhugiri town. After the search the gold and silver ornaments and other articles were put in the iron safe and the iron safe was sealed and a daffedar was stationed there to watch the same. At about 9-30 p. m. in the night the 1st respondent, the Sub-Divl Magistrate, madhugiri Sub Diyn came along with the Deputy Supdt of Police to the house of the petitioner and opened the sealed iron safe, prepared a mahazar of the articles so seized and all the articles were put in a trunk and the sealed trunk was removed by the respondents inspite of the petitioners protest. He has stated that no statement was recorded by the respondents. He hae also brought to the notice of the respondents that the ornaments seized do not solely belong to him aad that some of the ornaments belonged to his daughter and others. Me has stated that he has made a voluntary declaration regarding the ornaments belonging to him. ( 4 ) SIMILARLY the house of the 2nd petitioner was also searched at 7-30 a. m. on the same day and the 1st respondent came at about 10-30p. m. and seized the gold and silver articles and cash and removed the same from the 2nd petitioner's house in a sealed truk after drawing up a mahazar. This petitioner is not doing any money-lending business. The 4th and the 5th respondents came to the house of the 3rd petitioner at about 6 a. m. on the same day made a search and seized gold and silver ornaments and a cash of Rs. 32,000. The 1st respondent came at 10-30 p. m. in the night and removed those articles after drawing up a mahazar. The 3rd petitioner is also not doing any money-lending business. 32,000. The 1st respondent came at 10-30 p. m. in the night and removed those articles after drawing up a mahazar. The 3rd petitioner is also not doing any money-lending business. He is an income-tax and sales-tax assessee and a partner of the firm called M/s Tata janardhana Setty and Bros of Madhugiri town. ( 5 ) THE 4th petitioner's house was also searched and the articles were seized during his absence On the same day and the articles which belonged to him were removed by the 1st respondent. On 11-9-1976 the petitioners 1 to, 3 were served with notices by the Tahsildar Madhugiri as per Exts 'a' 'b' and 'c. The 4th petitioner has not been served with any notice. The petitioners were not given a copy of the mahazar drawn by the 1st respondent even though they requested him. They have submitted that the 1st respondent purporting to act under the provisions of the Karnataka debt Relief Act of 1976 got their houses searched and seized the articles. It is stated that the procedure adopted by the respondents in seizing the articles is contrary to the provisions of S. 5 (l) of the Act. They have submitted that no debtor has filed any application so as to enable the 1st respondent to invoke the power vested in him under the provisions of sub-sec (8) of S. 5 of the Act. The search and seizure conducted by the C. I. of Police and the S. I. of Police is without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. They have also challenged the validity of the Act as violative of Art. 31 of the Gonstn of India since those provisions tend to compulsorily acquire the property without fixation of compensation and that it amounted to confiscation of property. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners did not press the relief of striking down the Karnataka Debt Relief Act of 1976, but argued the case on merits. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the validity or otherwise of the Act. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners did not press the relief of striking down the Karnataka Debt Relief Act of 1976, but argued the case on merits. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the validity or otherwise of the Act. ( 7 ) THE 1st respondent in Ms statement of objections has denied the allegation that the C. I. of Police Sira or any other police officer raided the house of the petitioners; but admitted that on 10th Sec. 1976 he entered their premises, searched and seized several articles including cash with the assistance of several police officers of the area. He has further stated that he received large number of applications from various petitioners stated to be debtors of the petitioners and several others, inter alia stating that they were debtors within the meaning of the word 'debtor' occurring in sub-Sec (c) of S. 3 of the Act and that they had pledged various articles with the petitioners and others and that they are entitled for the extinguishment of their debts and return of the articles pledged by them. It is on the basis of the applications received by the 1st respondent and also information collected thereto, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, he entered the premises of the petitioners, who are stated to be the creditors with whom various articles were said to have been pledged by debtors, seized them and arranged for their safe custody in the sub-treasury at Madhugiri. He has further stated that bona fide believing that it was permissible to seize cash seized cash found in the respective houses of the petitioners after drawing a detailed inventory of the articles seized by him from all these petitioners, showing the value of the articles and the cash seized and marked as per Exhibit R-1. ( 8 ) AS already stated that in obedience to the interim order passed by this Court and on the undertaking given by the petitioners he returned the articles in paper packets solely with the object of facilitating the identification of the returned articles. He has stated that he has not circumvented the interim order issued by the Court. The user of returrned articles had not been prohibited by him. He has stated that he has not circumvented the interim order issued by the Court. The user of returrned articles had not been prohibited by him. He has further stated that after the seizure of articles from their safe custody he wanted to proceed to determine which of the articles seized by him are to be released to the debtors and passed orders expeditiously under sub-sec (9) of Sec. 5 of the act. He has denied that search and seizure of the articles is unauthorised and illegal and that he searched and seized the articles in order to keep them in safe custody. According to him, the seizure of gold and silver articles, promissory notes and vessels from the custody of the petitioners is authorised, legal and valid for adjudication under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act. However, the 1st respondent admits that seizure of cash from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd petitioners is unauthorised and it may be ordered to be retained by the petitioners. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly contended that large number of articles which are not articles pledged by debtors but are of the ownership of the petitioners and their family members have been unauthorisedly and illegally seized and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the return of the same. Secondly he contended that the seizure of these articles is made without any application by the concerned debtors and also without any credible or other information recorded by the Sub-Divisional- magistrate to show that these are the articles pledged by the debtors. Thirdly, he contended that under the Act, neither the CI of Police nor the si of Police, nor, even the Tahsildar, had any authority under the Act to search and seize the articles belonging to the petitioners. Further, he urged that the 1st respondent was never preaent at the time of search and seizure and no authority was shown to the petitioners by respondents 2 to 5, under which they were entering the house for search and seizure of articles. Lastly he contended that the search and seizure of the articles in question is in disobedience to the provisions of the Crlpc, governing the search and seizure of properties. Lastly he contended that the search and seizure of the articles in question is in disobedience to the provisions of the Crlpc, governing the search and seizure of properties. ( 10 ) THE learned Govt Advocate, argued that the Act is intended to give relief to the debtors from indebtedness and to extinguish' their debts, and that in order to achieve the object of thft Act, sub-section (9) of Section 5 of the Act, conferred suo motu powers on the first respondent to enter the house, search and seize the articles pledged by the debtors, who come within the definition of S. 3 of the Act. He pointed out that the non-obstante clause in sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, confers special power to enter the premises on application or otherwise ie. . , information, the intelligence report, or belief and seize articles pledged by the debtors. He nextly argued that the 1st respondent searched and seized the articles in question in order to preserve them in safe custody. He argued that sub- sec (9) of S. 5, is not controlled by sub-sec (3) of S. R of the Act, and therefore, he urged that for search nd seizure of articles under the Act the provisions of the Crl. PC relating to search and seizure are not attracted. However, the learned Govt Advocate fairly conceded that the power vested in the 1st respondent under the Act, is only to seize articles pledged by the debtors and that he has no power to seize articles, which are not articles pledged by the debtors. Finally he submitted that seizure of the cash is unauthorised. ( 11 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to bear in mind the relevant provisions of the act. S. 3 (c) of the Act, defines the word 'debtor', as under :"debtor' means : (i) a small farmer; or (ii) a landless agricultural labourer; or (iii) a person belonging to the weaker Sections of the people", further, S. 3 (d) of the Act, defines the words "landless agricultural labourer", which means; "a person who does not hold any land and whose principal means of livelihood is manual labour on land". Further, Section 3 (e) defines the word "small farmer", which means : " a person who holds whether as owner, tenant, or mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another not more than one unit of land and who has no income from any source other than agriculture". Further, the word 'unit' is also defined in clause (f) and in clause (g) the words 'weaker Sections of the people' have been defined, thus : "persons not being small farmers or landless agricultural labourers, whose annual income from all sources does not exceed two thousand and four hundred rupees". Section 4 of the Act, is the key section which gives 'relief from indebtedness', and specifies that the debts payable by the debtors to the creditor shall be deemed to be wholly discharged and bars suits or proceedings in civil Courts and lays down that the pending suits and proceedings shall also abate. Sub-sec (1) of S. 5 of the Act, says : "every creditor referred to in clause (e) of S. 4 shall, within fortyfive days from the eleventh day of November, 1975 furnish to the Sub-Divi magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where such creditor has his ordinary place of business, a statement containing the names of all the debtors who have pledged articles with him, the nature and desertion of the articles pledged, amount advanced and due as on 21st october. 1975 and such other particlars as may be prescribed. Sub-sec (2) of S. 5 of the Act, says : " On receipt of such statement and after such summary inquiry conducted in the manner provided in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as he considers necessary, the Sub-Divil Magistrate shall, by order, determine which of the debtorse are entitled to relief under S. 4 and direct the creditor to produce on or before the date specified in the order the articles pledged by such debtors". Sub-sec (3) of S. 5 of the Act, lays down : (3) If the creditor fails to produce the article es directed in the order under sub-sec (2), the Sub-Divl Magistrate may recover possession of the articles from the creditor and for this purpose shall exercise the same powers as are invested in him under the Crl. PC. , 1973 regarding search and seizure. PC. , 1973 regarding search and seizure. Sub-sec (4) of S. 5 of the Act, lays down : (4) After such production or recovery of the article pledged, the sub-Divil Magistrate shall deliver tha article to the debtor. Sub-sec (5) of S. 5 of the Act, is not material for consideration in this case, as it relates to mortgages. Further that sub-sec (6) of S. 5 of the Act, says: " Every order of the Sub-Divl Magistrate under this section shall be final". Sub-sec (7) of S. 5 of the Act, bars the appearance of the legal practitioners before the sub-Divil Magistrate, under this Section. Sub-sec (8) of S. 5 of the Act, says that pending determination of the question under sub-sec (2), no creditor shall sell or dispose of the articles pledged. Sub-sec (9) of s,5 of the Act, is relevant for the purpose of these cases, It says ; "notwithstanding anything in the preceding sub-section the Sub-Divl magistrate may, on application made by a debtor or otherwise, enter any premises of the creditor and search and seize articles pledged by debtors and arrange for their safe custody. Thereafter he shall proceed to determine which of the articles so seized, are to be released to the debtors and pass orders accordingly". ( 12 ) NOW the questions, which arise for decision in these writ petitions are : (1) Whether the articles seized in these cases are articles pledged by the debtors. If not whether the proceedings instituted by the 1st respondent are liable to be quashed. (2) Whether the provisions of Ss. 99, 100 and 103 of the Crl. PC are attracted in cases of search and seizure under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act. As regards the 1st question, it is relevant to make reference to sub-sec (e) of S. 4 of the Act, which is the key section which gives relief to the debtor and releases the property pledged in favour of debtors. PC are attracted in cases of search and seizure under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act. As regards the 1st question, it is relevant to make reference to sub-sec (e) of S. 4 of the Act, which is the key section which gives relief to the debtor and releases the property pledged in favour of debtors. S. 4 (e) of the act, saya ; "every moveable property pledged by a debtor shall stand released in favour of such debtor and the creditor shall be bound to return the same to the debtor forthwith and where the creditor fails to do so the debtor shall on application made to the Sub-Divil Magistrate having jurisdiction over the place where the debtor resides be entitled to the return of the same";it is clear from the above provision that every moveable property pledged by a debtor by operation of law stands released in favour of such debtor and the creditor is bound to return them and when he fails to do so, on an application by the debtor, the Sub-Divil Magistrate having jurisdiction over the place where the debtor resides is entitled to return the same. The Sub-Divil Magistrate is not entitled to return articles of the ownership of the creditor. It is important therefore to- note that under S. 4 (e) of the Act, moveable property pledged by the debtor alone stands released in his favour and those articles alone are to be returned by the Sub- divil Magistrate to the debtor. ( 13 ) SUB-SEC (9) of S. 5 of the Act, empowers the Sub-Divil Magistrate, on an application made by a debtor or otherwise to enter any premises of the creditor and search and seize articles pledged by the debtors and arrange for their safe custody. This provision also empowers the Sub- divil Magistrate to seize only the articles pledged by the debtors on application or otherwise and arrange for their safe custody and determine which of the articles are to be released to the debtors and pass orders accordingly. From a reading of the provisions of S. 4 (e) and S. 5 (9) of the act, it is clear that moveable property pledged by a debtor stands released and the Sub-Divil Magistrate is empowered to enter any premises of the creditor and search and seize the articles pledged by the debtor. From a reading of the provisions of S. 4 (e) and S. 5 (9) of the act, it is clear that moveable property pledged by a debtor stands released and the Sub-Divil Magistrate is empowered to enter any premises of the creditor and search and seize the articles pledged by the debtor. The Sub- divil Magistrate has no jurisdiction to search and seize articles which are not pledged by the debtors. ( 14 ) THE Sub-Divil Magistrate may act under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the act, on the application made by a debtor or on information or intelligence or on belief that the articles pledged by the debtors are in the possession of creditors. . Since tremendous power has been conferred under the provition of sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, on the Sub-Divil Magistrate, there must be strict compliance of these provisions and only articles pledged by the debtors alone are liable for seizure from the house of a creditor. Seizure of articles first and then determine which are the articles pledged by debtors ia not the intendment of provision sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act. Such a course is beset with the danger of seizure of articles which are of the ownership of a person. The law is to seize articles pledged by debtors and then determine which of the articles so seized are to be released to the debtors and pass orders accordingly. Seizure of articles which are not pledged by the debtors amounts to arbitrary seizure and such a seizure is unauthorised by law. He has no jurisdiction to lay his hands on all articles, except the articles pledged by a debtor. Therefore, before exercising the powers under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, the Sub-Divl Magistrate must make sure whether the articles seized came within the meaning of s. 4 (e) of the Act, and to do so, he must have the knowledge of the description of the articles pledged. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, the following is the statement showing the articles seized by the 1st respondent on 10-9-1976 from the houses of the petitioners. ( 16 ) AS regards the articles seized in these cases, it is necessary to determine whether the articles seized are the articles pledged by the debtors with these petitioners. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, the following is the statement showing the articles seized by the 1st respondent on 10-9-1976 from the houses of the petitioners. ( 16 ) AS regards the articles seized in these cases, it is necessary to determine whether the articles seized are the articles pledged by the debtors with these petitioners. The Govt Advocate has filed a statement showing the articles seized in respect of all these writ petitions, according to which in WP. No. 8560/76 on the application dated 10-8-1976 from one govindappa of Madhugiri one gold fing vanki vungare has been seized. In respect of WP. No. 8561/7c one Sidda Reddy of Halethimmanahalli filed an application d/. 28-7-76 in respect of two silver articles, which have not been seized, but one gold ring bhangarada vungura is seized and other gold articles have also not been seized. In V/p. No. 8562/76 o. ne chikkahanumanthappa of Guruvadrahalli gave an application to the respondent describing certain gold articles alleged to have been pledged with the petitioner in that writ petition. None of them have been seized. In WP. No. 8563/76 one Lakkappa of Madhugiri gave an application dated 30-7-76 to the 1st respondent describing certain articles alleged to have been pledged with the petitioner but none ot them have been seized. In WP. No 8564/76 one Karibasavaiah of Siddanahalli and Narasa Reddy of Kepapura village gave applications to the 1st respondent on 24-3-76 and 25-8-76 describing certain gold articles alleged to have been pledged with the petitioner, but none of them have been seized. Thus, except two articles, the rest of them have not been seized on application made by the debtors. The two articles pledged by the debtors are one 'vanki 'vngura' and another bangarada ungura from the petitioner in WP. No. 8560 of 1976 and WP. No. 8561 of 1976. Therefore, it is the case of seizure not on the application made by the debtors, but otherwise. Under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, 'the seizure of articles otherwise than on application may be on the credible information or intelligence or report or belief got or entertained by the 1st respondent. No. 8561 of 1976. Therefore, it is the case of seizure not on the application made by the debtors, but otherwise. Under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, 'the seizure of articles otherwise than on application may be on the credible information or intelligence or report or belief got or entertained by the 1st respondent. There is nothing on record in these cases to show that the 1st respondent had reduced to writing such information, intelligence or report giving the description of the articles pledged by the debtors and which were in the possession of these petitioners. Otherwise there is every likelihood of indiscriminate and arbitrary seizure of moveable property of the so called creditors. ( 17 ) ALTHOUGH sub-sec (7) of S. 5 of the Act, shows that the order of the 1st respondent is final, (he proceedings instituted by him under the Act are subject to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 Of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there must be some record to show that on what information, intelligence or belief, the 1st respondent proceeded to take action against the petitioner and to see whether the articles pledged by the debtors tally with the articles actually seized from the petitioners. There is no such record made by the first respondent in these cases. Therefore, it is not possible to say that most of the articles seized in these cases are articles pledged by debtors. Even in the mahazars drawn up for the seizure of all these articles, it is stated thus : This means that these petitioners were carrying on the business of money- lending arid pledging of articles without licence, and they were in illegal possession of gold and silver articles. Therefore, it is clear that the case made out is that the petitioners were in illegal possession of gold and silver articules and therefore, those articles have been seized. In the cource el the mahazar nowhere it is stated that either the articles seized were pledged by the debtors or articles suspected to have been pledged by the debton. Bub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, does not authorise the respondent to seize gold or sliver illegally possessed by any person. Therefore, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the articles seized in these case are the articles pledged by the debtors. Bub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, does not authorise the respondent to seize gold or sliver illegally possessed by any person. Therefore, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the articles seized in these case are the articles pledged by the debtors. ( 18 ) FURTHER no debtor was present at the time of seizure and identified any one of the articles as the articles pledged by him. The petitioner in WP. 8560 of 1876 has produced the declaration made by him giving the description of gold articles under S. 3 (1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of income and Wealth Ordinance, 1875 before the concerned authorities. The descriptions given therein tallies with the gold articles seized from his house. This is another circumstance to show that the gold articles seized from the house of the petitioner in WP. 8560 of 1976 are not the articles pledged by the debtors. From the description and value of articles given in the mahazar, it is not possible to say that they are the articles pledged by the debtors. It may be noted that the articles used for pooja, necklace and other gold and silver ornaments which are of high value could not be possessed by the debtors, who are small farmers or who belong to weaker sections or whose annual income is less than Rs. 2,400. No debtor, as denned in the Act, could afford to own a 'silver bindgi' or a silver soap box of luxury. Under these circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that there is no material on record to show that the articles seized from these petitioners are the article or moveable properties pledged by the debtors, which stood released in favour of the debtors. On the other hand they are the articles which belong to the petitioners except in the case of a 'gold vanki ring' seized from the petitioner in WP 8560/1978 and another gold ring seized from the petitioner in WP. 8561 of 1976. Therefore, the seizure of other articles except the two articles mentioned above is illegal and unauthorised in law and the petitioners are entitled to return of all the articles seized in these cases except the two gold rings seized from the petitioners in WPB. 8560 and 8561 of 1976. ( 19 ) (A ). 8561 of 1976. Therefore, the seizure of other articles except the two articles mentioned above is illegal and unauthorised in law and the petitioners are entitled to return of all the articles seized in these cases except the two gold rings seized from the petitioners in WPB. 8560 and 8561 of 1976. ( 19 ) (A ). Now turning to the question of application of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for search and seizure from a house the govt Advocate contended that whenever a Magistrate personally attends the search and seizure as required under S. 103 of the Crlpc, 1973 it is not necessary to observe the provisions of S. 99 and 100 of the Crlpc 1973. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to decide this question for the reason that there are circumstances to shew that the 1st respondent was nat present when the houses of the petitioners were searched and articles seized in these cases. ( 20 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the C. I. of Police, Sira, the sub Inspector of Police, Y. N. Hoskote, the Tahsildar erf Koretagere and the tahsildar of Madhugiri, came to the respective houses earrly in the morning, threatened the petitioners and made them to yield for search of their houses and seizure of the articles in question without producing any valid authority to do so. Under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, they were not euthorised to do so. The panchanamas do not disclose the time of search and seizure of articles in each one of these cases. The time of seizure of articles in question early in the morning on 10-9-76 by respondents 2 to 4 as alleged by the petitioners has not been specifically denied by the 1st respondent in the course of his affidavit. Having regard to the innumerable number of articles of a very high value, it is improbable that the 1st respondent himself had personally conducted the search and seizure in all these houses within a short interval of time as mentioned in the petition. The records disclose that the articles seized on that day were nearly worth more than six lakhs of rupees. As already stated there ii no mention of time of seizure of these articles in the panchanamas. The records disclose that the articles seized on that day were nearly worth more than six lakhs of rupees. As already stated there ii no mention of time of seizure of these articles in the panchanamas. In these circumstances, the inference that the articles were not seized personally by the 1st respondent is inescapable. Respondents 2 to 4 have not filed any affidavit denying these allegations. Therefore, the search and seizure of the articles in question by respondents 2 to 4 is wholly without the authority of law and therefore, the entire search and seizure of articles is illegal and unauthorised by law. In this view of the matter, the search and seizure of the articles in question from the houses of the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Seizure of pronotes and other documents from the houses of these petitioners is wholly unauthorised under sub-sec (9) of S. 5 of the Act, as under this sub-section the Suh-Divl Magistrate is not authorised to seize documents from the possession of the petitioners. ( 21 ) BEFORE parting with these cases, I am constrained to observe that the 1at respondent, who is an young IAS Officer invested with the powers of Sub-Divl Magistrate, has not only failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, but has allowed his seal to run out of the discretion and stepfed outside the limits of law in the matter of search and seizure of articles from the houses of these petitioners. The 1st respondent will do well in cricrcising certain amount of restraint while exercising the magisterial powersr vested in him. Further, I am constrained to observe that the 1st resnondent showed a tendency of flouting the interim order pawed by this Court as complained by the petitioners in the interlocutory applications though he has stated in his affidavit that he had not circumvented the interim order and that he obeyed them. It is better for him to avoid such a tendency in future. Tf the interim orders passed by this Court for any reason required to be vacated, proper procedure is to approach this court with a request to vacate the orders and not to circumvent it. ( 22 ) FOR the reasons stated above, all these writ petitions are allowed and the entire proceedings instituted by the 1st respondent from the inception are hereby quashed. ( 22 ) FOR the reasons stated above, all these writ petitions are allowed and the entire proceedings instituted by the 1st respondent from the inception are hereby quashed. The petitioners are permitted to retain th articles which were seized by the 1st respondent and returned to them after the interim order was passed. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .