Soni Bricks Trading Company v. State Of U. P. — 1983 DIGILAW 978 (ALL)

JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners in this and the connected writ petitions are carrying on the business of manufacturing bricks using slack coal as fuel in their brick-kilns. Under the provisions of the U. P. Coal Control Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Coal Control Order) issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act they are required to obtain a licence for running brick-kilns. THE petitioners had been obtaining such licences in the past and in some cases they have also sought renewal of their licences. Some of the petitioners, however, applied for the grant or renewal of the licence but their applications had not been disposed of by the time they filed these petitions. THE Supply Inspector attached to the office of the District Supply Officer who was responsible for administering the provisions of the aforesaid Coal Control Order made inspection of certain brick-kilns belonging to the petitioners and found various irregularities being committed. In most cases the irregularity committed was that the petitioners had started fining bricks in their brick-kilns with the help of slack coal but had not obtained or renewed there licences. Some stocks of slack coal were also found at the site of the brick-kilns and accordingly they were sought to be prosecuted far contravention of the provisions of the Coal Control Order read with sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. First Information reports had been lodged against the petitioners and in some cases arrests were also made and further arrests were apprehended when these petitioners came to the court. 2. THEY have challenged the validity of the Coal Control Order and the competence of the State Government to issue any such Order in exercise of the powers delegated to it by the Central Government under the Essential Commodities Act in so far as it was applicable to persons carrying on the business of manufacturing bricks with slack coal. The provisions were said to be ultra vires and powers of the State Government on the ground that bricks had not been notified as an essential commodity under the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act nor were bricks otherwise enumerated as an essential commodity within the meaning of the term. It has been prayed that the first information reports lodged against the petitioners and the consequent proceedings started thereon be also quashed and so also be quashed the Coal Control Order itself. It has been prayed that the first information reports lodged against the petitioners and the consequent proceedings started thereon be also quashed and so also be quashed the Coal Control Order itself. In some of the petitions a further prayer was added for issue of a directions in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to prosecute the petitioners and not to confiscate the bricks, coal or other property lying at the brick-kilns. As common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions, they have been heard as a bunch of petitions and we propose to dispose them of by this common judgment. Factual averments apart and which will be noticed later at the appropriate stage, the common questions that have been raised in these petitions relate to the competence of the State Government to issue such an Order for regulating the trade of manufacturing bricks in the brick-kilns on the ground that brick is not an essential commodity as defined in section 2 (a) of the Essential Commodities Act and even under the residuary clause (xi) this commodity has not been notified as an essential commodity by the Central Government. The contention was that even the Central Government could not have made an Order regulating the trade in bricks and consequently the State Government in exercise of the delegated powers also could not issue such an Order. Before referring to the various averments made on behalf of the State in the counter- affidavit it may be mentioned at this stage that the main ground on which these petitions were opposed by the State is that the Coal Control Order is directed to regulate the distribution, supply and trade in coal rather than bricks as such and that it is incidentally that the bricks and the brick-kilns have also become the subject-matter of this Order because these kilns use slack coal in the manufacture of bricks. In order, therefore, to securing the maintenance of supply of coal and its equitable distribution and availability that the Coal Control Order has been promulgated. Since the petitioners had either not obtained the licence or had merely made application for the purpose but licences were not issued or renewed and yet they had started manufacturing bricks, they were, according to the opposite parties, rightly being prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Order. 3. Since the petitioners had either not obtained the licence or had merely made application for the purpose but licences were not issued or renewed and yet they had started manufacturing bricks, they were, according to the opposite parties, rightly being prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Order. 3. IN order to appreciate the real controversy it would be appropriate to refer to certain provisions of the Coal Control Order. The preamble of the Order runs like this (Emphasis at relevant places has been supplied by us). " WHEREAS, the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary and expedient so to do for securing the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for securing the equitable distribution and availability of coal and bricks produced with the aid of slack coal at fair prices. The terms 'bricks', 'brick-kiln,' 'coal,' 'dealer' and 'licencee' have been defined in clause 2 of the Coal Control Order as below : "(a) " Bricks" means any bricks or tiles produced with the aid of slack coal but does not include fire-bricks or refractory brick and tiles. (b) "Brick-Kiln" means any kiln at which; bricks are manufactured with coal and the premises appurtenant thereto. (c) " Coal" means coal, coke and other derivatives and includes slack coal, steam coal, soft coke, hard coke or dust coal of various grades but does not include cinder and ashes and products and by-products of coal. (d) "Dealer" means a person carrying on as a principal or agent, whether separately or in conjunction with some other business, the business of import, purchase or storage for sale and sale of coal, in whole-sale and granted a licence in From 'B' and commonly known and herein referred to as "Coal agent" or in retail and granted a licence in Form 'C and commonly called and referred to herein as 'Coal Depot Holder' but does not include a consumer who imports, purchases or stores coal for his own use. (i) " Licence" means a person holding a licence under the provisions of this Order in Form 'B' or Form 'C or Form 'D' appended to this Order. " 4. THE relevant portions of Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 may also be noticed in this connection. THEy are like this ; " 3. (B). (i) " Licence" means a person holding a licence under the provisions of this Order in Form 'B' or Form 'C or Form 'D' appended to this Order. " 4. THE relevant portions of Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 may also be noticed in this connection. THEy are like this ; " 3. (B). THE provisions of clauses 4 to 10, 14 and 16 hereof, shall not apply to steam coal and hard coke for industrial consumption." " 4. No person shall import coal and carry on business as a coal agent, carry on business as a coal depot holder or run brick kiln with coal except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued under this Order." " 5. (a) Every application for the grant or renewal of a wholesale or retail licence or for running a brick kiln with slack coal shall be made to the licensing authority in Form 'A' appended to this Order. (b) Every licence granted or renewed under this Order shall be in Form 'B' in the case of Coal agent, in From 'C' in case of Coal Depot Holder, and in Form 'D' for running a brick-kiln with slack coal and shall be subject to tie conditions specified therein and such other conditions as the State Coal Controller or District Magistrate may prescribe from time to time. (e) THE Licencing Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant or renew or issue a duplicate licence. (g) A separate licence shall be obtained by a Coal Agent for each district and by a Coal Depot Holder or brick kiln owner for each separate place of business or brick-kiln. "8. (i). A. Licencee under this Order (b) shall comply with any direction that may be issued to him from time to time by the State Cod Controller or the District Magistrate in regard to import, purchase, sale, storage or distribution of coal or for running a brick kiln with coal and sale and distribution of bricks as applicable to him. (iv) A licensee in Form 'D' or person running a brick kiln with coal. (iv) A licensee in Form 'D' or person running a brick kiln with coal. (a) shall not utilise or cause to be utilised coal allotted to him or in stock with him for a purpose other than burning bricks and shall not divert or transfer any such coal to any other person or any other brick kiln, even though owned by him, except under a written authority from the District Magistrate; (b) shall sell the whole or a specified part of his stock of bricks produced with the aid of slack coal to a person as may be specified in a permit issued in that behalf by the District Magistrate and addressed to him; (c) shall manufacture with the aid of slack coal bricks of such sizes as may be fixed by the District Magistrate and shall further sell them at such prices as may be fixed by the District Magistrate for different sizes and classes of bricks. Note-For the purpose of this sub-clause, the District Magistrate may, subject to any direction of the State Government, by general or special order, fix - (a) the sizes of which bricks with the aid of slack coal are to be manufactured ; and (b) the maximum price at which different classes of such bricks may be sold to the public in general and in bulk to constructions agencies in the public sector in particular by any person, such price, being based on the estimated cost of manufacture of such bricks plus reasonable margin of profit thereon; Provided that different prices may be fixed in respect of different classes and sizes of such bricks for different localities in the district having regard to different circumstances pertaining thereto. There is no dispute on the point that bricks as such has not been specified as an essential commodity nor has it been declared as such by a notified order by the Central Government under clause (xi) of section 2 (a) of the Essential Commodities Act. The stand taken by the State is that with a view to regulate the distribution, supply and availability of coal at fair price the Coal Control Order also brings within its fold the manufacture of bricks with coal at the brick-kilns. The stand taken by the State is that with a view to regulate the distribution, supply and availability of coal at fair price the Coal Control Order also brings within its fold the manufacture of bricks with coal at the brick-kilns. A reference to the preamble of the Coal Control Order as reproduced above will indicate; that it was issued not only for maintenance of supplies and securing equitable distribution and availability at fair price of coal but also of bricks produced with the aid of slack coal. Thus even in respect of bricks the purpose behind the issuance of the Coal Control Order was maintenance of supplies and securing equitable distribution and availability of bricks at fair price. Obviously, this could not be done in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The State cannot be heard to say that the provisions of the Coal Control Order are directed merely to regulate equitable distribution etc. of coal because all these provisions regarding distribution and restrictions on import, export, and even on the fixation of prices of bricks have been made applicable to bricks as they are applicable to coal. Bricks in the context means those prepared with the aid of slack coal. The brick-kiln owners are required to obtain licence in Form D after making applications in Form A. Clause 4 indicates that no person can carry on the business of running a brick-kiln with coal except under and in accordance with, the terms and conditions of a licence issued in Form D. Now the Form D appended to the Coal Control Order lay down certain conditions of licence which have to be observed and the contravention whereof will render a person liable for prosecution and penalty under clause 15. Condition (A) of the licence prescribes that the licences shall comply with any general or special directions issued by the State Coal Controller or the Licensing Authority from time to time under that order in regard to the disposal or sale of any, stock of coal or bricks held by him. Condition (5) of the licence lays down that contravention of any of the conditions thereof shall render the licence liable to cancellation besides any other action being taken against the licensee. Condition (5) of the licence lays down that contravention of any of the conditions thereof shall render the licence liable to cancellation besides any other action being taken against the licensee. The power to issue directions is available to the State Coal Controller and the Licensing Authority under clause 8 of the Coal Control Order. Then clause 8 as already extracted above will indicate that this power is available for issuing directions in regard to import, purchase, sale, storage or distribution of coal or for running a brick-kiln with coal and sale and distribution of bricks. Clause 8 also provides that a licensee of brick-kiln in Form D shall be liable to sell the whole or a specified part of his stock of bricks produced with the aid of slack coal to a person as. may be specified in a permit issued in that behalf by the District Magistrate. Directions can also be issued with regard to the size of the bricks and fixation of price at which bricks can be sold. It will therefore, appear from the provisions aforesaid that almost full control over the trade of brides made with the aid of slack coal has been contemplated under the Coal Control Order. The contention of the State that the trade of manufacturing bricks was not sought to be regulated by the aforesaid Order cannot be accepted because even if a full- fledged separate Order was to be issued in respect of the bricks, if the same had been declared an essential commodity, possibly no more provisions were needed to regulate the distribution sale and price etc. of the bricks. Obviously such provisions could not be made in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act as bricks had not been declared as an essential commodity. What could not done directly by the State Government cannot also be allowed to be done indirectly under the garb of Coal Control Order. 5. IT was argued for the petitioners that all restrictions and control over coal have been lifted by the Central Government in view of the easy availability of the commodity and yet the petitioners were obliged to obtain licence in Form D for running the brick-kilns. IT has not been disputed on behalf of the State that it is open to the petitioners to bring coal by trucks etc. IT has not been disputed on behalf of the State that it is open to the petitioners to bring coal by trucks etc. from the collieries without any restriction but still they are required to obtain a licence. The learned counsel contended that the brick-kiln owners were not dealers within the meaning of the term as defined in the Coal Control Order and consequently their position as mere consumers of coal should not be worse than a dealer and they should not be obliged to obtain a licence in Form D. Learned counsel for the State has drawn our attention to two Government Orders one dated 3rd June, 1982 and the other dated 9th December 1982 which explains the former (one). Copy of the Government Order dated 3rd June, 1982 is Annexure 9 in WP No. 533 of 1983. According to this Government Order, control and restrictions in respect of coal had been lifted by the Government of India, and the Coal India Ltd. was permitting free sale of coal. IT was brought to the notice of the Government that certain brick-kiln owners were being harrassed as they were bringing coal from the collieries and consequently it was clarified that except clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Coal Control Order no other provision thereof was to apply to them and consequently those other provisions were to remain in abeyance. lt was further clarified that in respect of brick prepared from coal and brought by the licensees by road there will be no restriction on sale, purchase, movement, storage, distribution etc. nor they would be subject to any search or confiscation or fixation of price over bricks nor will they be prosecuted for contravention of those other provisions under the Essential Commodities Act or tike Coal Control Order. By the subsequent Government Order dated 9th December, 1982 which is Annexure A-5 in WP No. 532 of 1983 it was further clarified that in order to take the advantage of the relaxation and putting in abeyance of the various provisions of the Coal Control Order, the brick-kiln owners were still required to obtain licence under clause 4 and consequently the provisions of clauses 4 to 7 would continue to apply to them. The result was that in case a brick-kiln owner does not obtain a licence under Clause 4 he would be bound to comply with all the provisions of the Coal Control Order and in case of contravention he would be liable to prosecution and penalty under clause 15 thereof. Moreover, the Government Orders putting certain provisions in abeyance were merely administrative, orders which could be rescinded or modified at any time and consequently it cannot be said that because the petitioners were not obliged to comply with the various provisions of the Coal Control Order at the moment, they could not come to court for redress. Although clauses 8 and 15 of the Coal Control Order were put in abeyance and consequently the learned counsel for the State argued that State Coal Controller or the licencing authority was not in a position to issue any directions to the brick kiln owners, but it may be noticed that one of the conditions of the licence was that the State Coal Controller and the Licensing Authority were empowered to issue directions regarding disposal and sale of bricks etc. If a brick-kiln owner was required to obtain a licence in Form D, he was bound to comply with the conditions of licence including the condition aforesaid as it was printed on the licence itself and then clause 4 specifically mentions that the brick-kiln owner was entitled to run the brick-kiln only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. That being so, the putting in abeyance; of certain provisions of the Coal Control Order was virtually rendered meaningless and then the Government orders being administrative in nature which could be withdrawn at any mement, the petitioners would be obliged to comply with the provisions of the Coal Control Order. The basic facts therefore, remains that the provisions of the nature already referred to earlier which regulate practically the entire trade in bricks cannot be sustained when this commodity has been notified as an essential commodity. When the vires of the Coal Control Order is under challenge it would be no answer to this challenge to say that the various provisions of the Coal Control Order have been put into abeyance. IT may be repeated that even the preamble of the Coal Control Order indicates that the sale, distribution, price etc. When the vires of the Coal Control Order is under challenge it would be no answer to this challenge to say that the various provisions of the Coal Control Order have been put into abeyance. IT may be repeated that even the preamble of the Coal Control Order indicates that the sale, distribution, price etc. of bricks was sought to be regulated in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. THE learned counsel for the State hits also argued that the purpose of the Coal Control Order would be defeated if the brick-kiln owners were not required to obtain any licence and if they 'obtained a licence, they would not be required to do anything further so long as the various provisions of the Coal Control Order are kept in abeyance. THEre is no doubt that coal being an essential commodity the State Government would be within its powers to ensure that this commodity is not misused or its availability at fair price is not put in jeopardy. Since the brick-kiln owners are only consumers of coal and not dealers, all the provisions that are applicable to dealers particularly those with respect to movement, sale, price etc. cannot be made applicable to brick-kiln owners as brick is not an essential commodity. By the mere requirement for obtaining a licence under clause 4 in Form D several of the provisions of the Coal Control Order stand attracted by virtue of the conditions mentioned in the licence itself when read with clause 4 which. requires that a person can run a brick-kiln (only under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. The result is that even these terms and conditions cannot be severed from the licence and consequently even on the principle of reading down it is difficult to severe these conditions from the licence or the requirement that a person can run a brick-kiln only under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. That being so, even clause 4 which make the obtaining of the licence necessary cannot be upheld. That being so, even clause 4 which make the obtaining of the licence necessary cannot be upheld. It should, however, be open to the State Govenment to make adequate provisions for ensuring that coal issued for a purpose either under a permit or otherwise is not misused, but those provisions have to be made separately with this sole objective in view but no further as the brick-kiln owners are are consumers of slack coal used for firing bricks and they are not dealers in coal. THE Coal Control Order so far as it relates to dealers in coal and lays down provisions to regulate the distribution, import, export and price etc. of coal is severable as regards its applications to brick-kiln owners who manufacture bricks with the aid of slack coal. That being so, the entire Coal Control Order cannot be struck down. It shall continue to apply to coal dealers and can also regulate other matters relating to supply and availability of coal, but as regards its application to persons manufacturing bricks with slack coal at the brick-kilns, the Coal Control Order deserves to be struck down. Another ground of challenge made by the petitioners is that the Coal Control Order is discriminatory inasmuch as other similar trades using slack coal are not covered by it whereas the brick-kiln owners are the only class of persons to whom the provisions have keen applied. Such an averment was made in para 44 of WP No. 532 of 1983. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the brick-kiln owners have been brought within the purview of the Coal Control Order as they constitute a class in themselves. In fact, the petitioners have not given sufficient data to show that there are other industries using slack coal and which are similarly placed. It was argued that glass and ceramics industries also consume coal in bulk. This specific averment had not been made in this petition though in some others these two industries have also been mentioned. In fact, the petitioners have not given sufficient data to show that there are other industries using slack coal and which are similarly placed. It was argued that glass and ceramics industries also consume coal in bulk. This specific averment had not been made in this petition though in some others these two industries have also been mentioned. However, in the absence of adequate data indicating how much coal is consumed in the manufacturing of bricks and what is the consumption in other industries like glass and ceramics it is not possible to say that the brick industry has been discriminated against though on the face of it it appears that there should be other industries which also consume slack coal in bulk and may perhaps be falling in the same class as the brick-kilns. In view, however, of our earlier observations holding that the Coal Control Order is ultra vires the powers of the State Government in so far as it regulates the trade in bricks which is not an essential commodity, we need not go into the question of hostile discrimination as alleged by the petitioners. 7. SRI K. M. N. Chak appearing in WtP No. 1475 of 1983 on behalf of the State has, however, argued that the ground of discrimination cannot be taken by the petitioners in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 239 . The contention was that Article 14 was rendered inapplicable by virtue of Article 31-C of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution Forty-Second Amendment Act. The contention is, however, misconceived. The immunity afforded by Article 31-C, however, will be available only to a law directing the policy of the State towards securing the Directive Principles contained in Part IV. It has not been indicated as to which Article falling in Part IV of the Constitution would be applicable to the Coal Control Order issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The following observations in Senjeev Coke Mfg. Co.'s case may be noticed. ".........The law seeking the immunity afforded by Art. 31-C must be a law directing the policy of the State towards securing a Directive Principle. The following observations in Senjeev Coke Mfg. Co.'s case may be noticed. ".........The law seeking the immunity afforded by Art. 31-C must be a law directing the policy of the State towards securing a Directive Principle. The object of the law must be to give effect to the Directive Principle and the connection with the Directive Principle must not be 'sime remote or tenuous connection' ". ".........To insist on nexus between the law for which protection is claimed and the principle of Article 39 (b) is not to insist on fulfilment of the requirement of Art. 14." 8. SRI Chak also argued that the Coal Control Order is referable to Entries 18, 26 and 27 of List II-State List-of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and therefore, even if bricks have not been declared to be an essential commodity, the State Government's legislative competence on the subject should be available in order to uphold the Coal Control Order. We are not inclined to agree with the contention. Entry 18 relates to land or rights in or over land. The contention of the learned counsel was that brick-kiln owners consume earth dug from the fields. The Coal Control Order does not make any provision to regulate the use of land or earth dug there from. Reference to Entry 18 for upholding the Coal Control Order is therefore, clearly misconceived. Similarly, the provisions of the Coal Control Order are not referable to Entries 26 and 27 of the State List as they primarily deal with coal which is an essential commodity and is covered by Entry 33 of the! Current List-List III-and there is nothing to indicate in the Order that the provisions of the nature made in that Order were expedient to be made in respect of the manufacture, distribution, supply and price etc. of bricks. The provisions of the Coal Control Order should be shown to have nexus with the object to be achieved. For that purpose and in what circumstances the brick industry was sought to be regulated is not clear. Whether bricks were a scarce commodity requiring the distribution, sale, export, import or fixation of price to be regulated is also not clear from the counter-affidavit. What the Coal Control Order lays down in respect of bricks is in the context of coal. Whether bricks were a scarce commodity requiring the distribution, sale, export, import or fixation of price to be regulated is also not clear from the counter-affidavit. What the Coal Control Order lays down in respect of bricks is in the context of coal. The counter-affidavit also does not disclose facts justifying the promulgation of an Order of this nature with respect to bricks and the brick-kilns. Moreover, the Coal Control Order is a price of subordinate legislation issued in exercise of the delegated powers under the Essential Commodities Act. Even if any matter relating to bricks required to be regulated, it could be done through an act of legislature or an Ordinance but any such Order issued in exercise of the delegated powers could not travel beyond the limits of such powers which have to be confined, to the ambit of Essential Commodities Act, and which power is not available is respect of bricks, it being not an essential commoaity. That being so, the Coal Control Order in so far as it relates to regulating the manufacture, distribution, fixation of price etc. in respect of bricks cannot be upheld and deserves to be struck down to that extent. For the same reasons the prosecution of the petitioners proposed to be launched for contravention of the provisions of the Coal Control Order also cannot be sustained and the first information reports lodged in that behalf deserve to be quashed. Now taking up the individual petitions, it will appear that in most of the petitions the prayer was to quash the Coal Control Order and the FIRs lodged against the petitioners for contravention of its provisions. It was also prayed in these petitions that the opposite parties be directed not to proceed with the prosecution or arrest of the petitioners for the contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Order. In these petitions, the petitioners had either applied for the grant of licence or for its renewal but the same was not granted and in the meanwhile they were proceeding with the manufacture of bricks in anticipation. These petitions are Nos. 532 of 1983, 533 of 1983, 821 of 1983, 928 of 1983, 929 of 1983, 1227 off 1983, 1524 of 1983, 1849 of 1983, 2047 of 1983, 2074 of 1983, 2197 of 1983 and 3479 of 1983. 9. These petitions are Nos. 532 of 1983, 533 of 1983, 821 of 1983, 928 of 1983, 929 of 1983, 1227 off 1983, 1524 of 1983, 1849 of 1983, 2047 of 1983, 2074 of 1983, 2197 of 1983 and 3479 of 1983. 9. IN WP No. 1331 of 1983, other prayers were similar but there was no prayer for quashing of FIRs. which do not appear to have been lodged by the time. Other similar petitions are nos. 161CI of 1983, 1625 of 1983, 1651 of 1983, 1721 of 1983 and 1839 of 1983. The petitioners in these cases appears to have approached this Court in anticipation of the lodging of the formal FIR. 10. IN WP No. 1475 of 1983 besides the aforesaid prayers to quash the Coal Control Order and the FIR a further prayer was made for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to confiscate bricks or other property in pursuance of the Coal Control Order. In WP No. 1553 of 1983, a mandamus was also sought to be issued directing the opposite parties to release the bricks seized from the petitioner's brick-kiln and not to arrest Ajai Kumar, the sole proprietor of the petitioner firm. 11. IN WP No. 1847 of 1983 besides praying for quashing the Coal Control Order and the FIR a further prayer was made to release the bricks and coal seized from the brick-kiln though the same had already been ordered to be released on furnishing security by an interim order of this Court. A prayer was also made directing the opposite parties to set the petitioner at liberty as he was under arrest but the petitioner's learned counsel had stated before the Court that the petitioner would seek other nemedy to secure his release by way of habeas corpus petition etc. 12. IN WP No. 2044 of 1983, a prayer was made that the bricks and other property including the utensils, tools etc. lying on the brick-kiln and seized by the opposite parties be released and ;a mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties not to interfere in the business of the petitioner in running the brick-kiln. A mandamus was also prayed directing the opposite parties to issue a mineral permit and licence under the Coal Control Order. lying on the brick-kiln and seized by the opposite parties be released and ;a mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties not to interfere in the business of the petitioner in running the brick-kiln. A mandamus was also prayed directing the opposite parties to issue a mineral permit and licence under the Coal Control Order. As the Coal Control Order is being quashed to the extent it applies to brick-kiln owners, this relief need not be granted. As regards the release of the property, the same deserves to be released, if it has been seized in pursuance of the proceedings under the Coal Control Order. It may also be observed in this connection that counter-affidavits had been filed by the State only in a few of the cases including the leading case- WP No. 532 of 1983-and it was stated that the same may be read as counter- affidavit in other cases since only law points were involved in the matter. As the matter is being decided merely on legal points, we need not refer to factual pleas raised in the petitions and replied in counter-affidavit as to whether the applications for licence were made in proper prescribed form or on plain paper and whether they were made before the start of the work at the brick-kilns or subsequent thereto and the like. The bricks, coal or other property if taken into possession in pursuance of the first information reports lodged against the petitioners for contravention of the Coal Control Order also deserve to be released. 13. IN the result, WP No. 532 of 1983, and the connected petitions Nos. 533 of 1983, 821 of 1983, 928 of 1983, 1524 of 1983, 1553 of 1983, 1610 of 1983, 1625 of 1983, 1651 of 1983, 1721 of 1983, 1839 of 1983, 1847 of 1983, 1849 of 1983, 2044 of 1983, 2047 of 1983, 2074 of 1983, 2197 of 1983 and 3479 of 1983 are allowed and the U. P. Coal (control Order, 1977 is quashed to the extent it applies to persons manufacturing bricks with the aid of slack coal and to the brick-kilns being run by them for the manufacture of the bricks in the aforesaid manner. The opposite parties are directed not to enforce the provisions of the U. P. Coal Control Order, 1977 against the petitioners as regards their business of manufacturing bricks with slack coal. 14. The opposite parties are directed not to enforce the provisions of the U. P. Coal Control Order, 1977 against the petitioners as regards their business of manufacturing bricks with slack coal. 14. THE first information reports lodged against the petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the U. P. Coal Control Order, 1977 read with section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the consequent prosecution on that basis are also quashed. THE petitioners shall not be arrested or prosecution for contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Order in respect of their business of manufacturing bricks. The bricks, coal or other property seized in pursuance of the first information reports lodged against the petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Coal Control Order shall be restored to them unless it is required to be retained, in connection with any other offence. 15. IN the peculiar circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs.