Judgment R. C. P. Sinha, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs or direction/directions or order/ orders on the State of Bihar and other respondents restraining them from interfering with the removal of coal from the Gurpa Railway Station which he had purchased in an auction sale held on 27-6-1985 by the Eastern Railway. The further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 4-2-1986 passed by the District Collector of Gaya in confiscation case No.13 of 1985-1986 (Annexure-16 ). 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner purchased 504 metric Tons of steam coal from the Eastern Railway at a totat cost of Rs.1,90,000/-in an auction sale held on 27-6-1985 and he was asked to remove the entire coal from the site by or before 18-7-1985 failing which the Railway administration would not be responsible for any loss. A sum of Rs.95,000/- was paid by the petitioner on 27-6-1985 and the remaining amount was to be paid by 1-7-1985. On 4-7-1985 the petitioner lifted and removed 210 metric tons of coal to his coal godown in Paharpur, P. S. Fatehpur in the District of Gaya. , 3. In the night of 4-7-1985, the aforesaid place where the coal was stocked was raided by police and the entire stock was seized and the petitioner along with his brother was arrested on the accusation of having contravened the provision of Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 and a first information report was also drawn on the written report of the Supply Inspector and a case under Sec.7 of the essential Commodities Act was registered (Annexure-7 ). After release on bail by order dated 26-7-1985 passed by this Court the petitioner went to lift the remainig quantity of the coal which was still lying at Gurpa Railway Station but he found some policemen there who did not allow him to lift the same. Thereafter an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India numburd as C. W. J. C. No.3582/1985 was filed before this Court on 8-8-1985 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 2-9-1985 on the statement made by the petitioner that he would move the authorities for allowing him to remove the goal. Thereafter an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India numburd as C. W. J. C. No.3582/1985 was filed before this Court on 8-8-1985 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 2-9-1985 on the statement made by the petitioner that he would move the authorities for allowing him to remove the goal. After withdrawal of the aforesaid writ application the petitioner filed a petition dated the 12th September, 1985 (Annexure-13) to the Collector, Gaya (Respondent No,2) with a prayer that the officer-in-charge of Fatehpur Police station should be directed not to interefere with the petitioners right to remove the coal from Gurpa Railway Station. On receipt of the petition, confiscation case No.13 of 1985-86 was initiated and a report was called for from the sub-divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya (Respondent No.3) submitted a report dated 24/27th December, 1985. On receipt of the report the petitioner was directed to get the coal weighed in presence of a Supply Inspector to be deputed by Respondent No.3. By the aforesaid order Respondent No.3 was further directed to ascertain if the coal could be sold to the consumers under his supervision. Thereafter the petitioner filed the persent writ application for the relief mentioned above. 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a lawful owner of coal in question, the respondents have got no authority to prevent him from its removal. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not contravened any of the provisions of any law in purchasing the coal at the auction sale. It has also been submitted that the case which has been registered by the poilce is not with regard to the coal lying at Gurpa Railway Station. 6. On the other hand it has been submitted by the learned Advocate general that the petition being not a licensee under the provision of either the bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 or the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification)Order, 1984 (Hereinafter referred to as unification Order) he was precluded from purchasing the coal and by purchasing the same he has contravened the provision of clause (3) of the Unification Order and the case is also in respect of the coal in question. 7. 7. In the writ application it has been admitted that the father of the petitioner had been dealing in coal for more than thirty years and had a licence bearing No.31/53 in the name and style of M/s. Badri Narayan Murli Manohar which was being renewed from year to year and for the purpose of renewal for the year, 1985 a sum of Rs.30/- as renewal fee was deposited on behalf of the aforesaid firm which was pending in the Office of the District Supply Officer, gaya on the date of filing of this application. It is also the case of the petitioner that a part of the coal which was removed on 4-7-1985 was kept in his old coal godown. There is not even a whisper in the whole of the petition that the aforesaid coal was not for the purpose of business. A huge quantity of coal was purchased by the petitioner at the auction sale. 8. It has been mentioned in Anuexure-15 which is a true eopy of the report submitted by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya to Respondent No.2 that neither the petitioner nor his father is a licensee for coal and that he has contravened the provisions of Unification Order. From Annexure-15 it also appears that he recommended for confiscation of the coal lying at Gurpa railway Station and that the officer-in-charge of Fatehpur Police Station was directed to remove the same to Fatehpur or Gaya. 9. The second important document is Annexure-1 which is a true copy of the first information report drawn on the written report of the Supply inspector, Sadar, Gaya whereupon a case under Sec.1 of the Essential commodities Act was registered, in Annexure 1 it has cleary been mentioned that the petitioner purchased 504 metric tons of coal at the auction from the railway for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- for sale in other provinces as well as in black market. In has also been mentioned therein that the petitioner does not hold any licence for doing business in coal. It has also been alleged therein that he has been doing this business on a large scale illegally for several years. It has further been stated therein that out of 504 metric tons of coal purchased, only 210 metric tons were brought and the remaining was still to be removed and brought to the godown. It has also been alleged therein that he has been doing this business on a large scale illegally for several years. It has further been stated therein that out of 504 metric tons of coal purchased, only 210 metric tons were brought and the remaining was still to be removed and brought to the godown. From the allegation made in Annexure-1 it is clear that the aforesaid case is not only to confined to 210 metric tons of coal kept in the godow rather the case is with regard to the entire coal purchased by him. 10. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner is engaged in the business of purchase sale or storage for sale of coal without holding any license for the same and he is dealer as defined in the Unification order but without licence. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that no licence was required for storing any coal for sale on the date of raid i. e. , 4-7-1985 as there was no notification issued by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government prescibing the limits of coal for storage requiring licence under Proviso (2) of Clause 3 of the Unification Order and the notification prescribing the limit was issued on the 17th of October, 1985 and hence the petitioner did not contravene any provision either of the Essential Commodities Act or the unification Order. No doubt, the notification prescribing the limit was issued after the aforesaid date i. e. , 4-7-1985 but the matter does not end there because the licence is also required for carrying on business of purchase of coal. Sub-clause 1 of Clause 3 of the Unification Order is the relevant provision in this regard which runs as follows: "no dealer shall after the Commencement of this Order, carry on business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any of the trade articies mentioned in Schedule I except under and in accordance with, the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority under the provisions of this Order. Provided that no licence shall be required for a dealer who stores for sale at any one time the trade articles, in quantities not exceeding the limits as may be prescribed by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government for any trade article from time to time. " 12. No doubt, the aforeasid proviso supports the case of the petitioner but it is only confined to storage for sale. According to sub-clause (1) of the unification Order quoted above one is required to obtain licence for carrying on business of purchase but admittedly in this case on the date of purchase the petitioner did not hold any licence and hence he contravened the aforesaid clauses. 13. It has further been contended that the word purchase in sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 was introduced by amendment made therein after the aforesaid date of purchase. On the other hand, learned Adovcate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the word purchase was an accidental ommission in the English version of the Order but in the Hindi version the word kraya (purchase) was there from the very beginning and hence the word purchase was introduced in the English version only by the aforesaid amendment. This argument of learned Advocate General is correct and in that view of the matter the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is without any substance and has to be rejected. 14. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this application and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by him. 15. In the result, the application is dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that any finding given in this writ application and any observation made therein will not prejudice the case of the petitioner or the prosecution in the criminal case or in confiscation proceeding.