JUDGMENT : P.S. Sahay, J.- The petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the seizure of fertilizers (Annexure-I), which was done under the provisions of Fertilizers (Control) ORDER :, 1957 and the show cause notice issued under the confiscation proceeding (Aanexure-4), the ORDER :of the Collector passed in the proceeding under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Certain facts have to be stated in ORDER :to appreciate the points. Petitioner no. 1 is the licensee under the Fertilizers (Control) ORDER :and petitioner no. 2 is the employee. On 13.9.1980 the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no. 3) came to the shop of the petitioners and after breaking open the lock verified the stocks and a first information report was lodged on 19.9.1980. The fertilizers were seized and a seizure list was prepared, which is Annexure-I. Thereafter, first information report was lodged, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2. A proceeding under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was started in ORDER :to confiscate the seized stocks of fertilizers and notice was served on the petitioners (Annexure-4). The learned Collector by his ORDER :dated 22.6.1931 ORDER :ed for confiscation of the seized articles. A copy of the ORDER :has been filed and marked Annexure-5. Against the aforesaid ORDER :the petitioners have moved this Court. 3. Mr. G.C. Bharuka learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, bas contended that the seizure of the articles was wholly illegal and unjustified and, therefore, no confiscation proceeding could have been initiated under' section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, The contention is that the Anchal Adhikari, respondent no. 3, is not a competent authority under the provisions of the Fertilizers (Control) ORDER :, 1957- and, therefore, the seizure made by respondent no. 3 was wholly invalid and without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed and,' accordingly, the confiscation proceeding started against the petitioners on the basis of that illegal seizure also must be quashed. In• support of his contention reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Pars ad and another v. State' of• Bihar & ors. 1978 (LVII) I.L.R.]. Patna series, page 988 : 1981 BRLJ 1. In• support of his contention reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Pars ad and another v. State' of• Bihar & ors. 1978 (LVII) I.L.R.]. Patna series, page 988 : 1981 BRLJ 1. In that case the seizure of-fertilizers was made by the Inspector of C.L.D. (Food) and a similar point was raised that he wall not an Inspector as required under clause 19 of the Fertilizers (Control) ORDER :and, therefore, the seizure was bad. On a consideration of various authorities, it was held that a valid seizure was a sine qua non for giving jurisdiction to a Collector for starting a proceeding for confiscation of Essential commodities. 4. In my opinion the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner" is well founded and has to be accepted. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been stated that all Magistrates have been given the power of Inspector as required under clause 19 of the Fertilizers (Control) ORDER :, but the two notifications, which have been appended along with the counter affidavit, are subsequent to, 18.9.1980 and, therefore, those will not be relevant in the instant• case. In that view of the matter- it will not be necessary to decide in this case whether' the Anchal Adhikari 'was also empowered to act as Inspector under the Fertilizers (Control) ORDER :. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that there was a violation of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) ORDER :. 1977. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that fertilizer was brought under the schedule by notification dated 8.5.1980, which was challenged in this Court and in the case of Madbusudao Prasad v. The State of Bihar & ors. (Cr.W.J.C.212 of 1981 : disposed of on 25.11.81) it has been held that inclusion of fertilizer in the schedule was without any authority of law. Therefore, it cannot be said in the instant case that there was a violation of the Display ORDER :. 5. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the seizure (Annexure-I) and the ORDER :of the Collector (Annexure-5) are hereby quashed. It is not-known what is the stage of the criminal prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said in the instant case that there was a violation of the Display ORDER :. 5. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the seizure (Annexure-I) and the ORDER :of the Collector (Annexure-5) are hereby quashed. It is not-known what is the stage of the criminal prosecution. However, if any action is taken against the petitioners, it will be open for their to move the court concerned or any other higher court for any appropriate relief.