Judgment S. H. S. Abidi, J. 1. All the three applications have been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for confiscation proceeding in respect of the seized coal. The questions of fact involved in all these applications are the same and so with consent of the parties all these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. It appears that on 15-5-1981 at about 6 a. m. during the investigation of some case of Katras P. S. Case No.169/81 under Sections 414/120-B I. P. C. and 7 E. C. Act, a raid was conducted in the premises of Suvinita Agencies, a hard Coke Bhatha. near Rajpura Colliery of B. C. C. L. under the Katras Police station and the coal of different grades totalling around 790 tonnes valued approximately rupees six lakhs sixty nine thousand two hundred was recovered, as there was no proper display of stock position exhibited in the premises of the said firm as required under the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stock)Order, 1977 (in short order of 1977) so it was said that it was punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. A report to this effect was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, for starting confiscation proceedings on this ground saying that during the investigation the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajganj, had ascertained that these coals were illegally brought to the city from different sources of B. C. C. L. and the officials of the B. C. C. L. also claimed that these grade of coal were available in their colliery and further that no owner, proprietor or the agent of the said firm could produce any valid papers in support of their claims for the coal nor was there any valid paper regarding the possession of the seized coal. So a prayer was made to start a proceeding under Sec.6-A of the Essential commodities Act. On this application proceedings for confiscation were started and notices were issued to the petitioners to show cause against which the peti-tioners have come to this Court and these three applications have been tiled. 4. During the pendency of these applications further proceedings in the court below were ordered to be stayed. On this application proceedings for confiscation were started and notices were issued to the petitioners to show cause against which the peti-tioners have come to this Court and these three applications have been tiled. 4. During the pendency of these applications further proceedings in the court below were ordered to be stayed. The parties were heard and the interim order was modified to the extent that the hard coke should be sold under the direction of the Judicial Magistrate with notice to the representatives of each of the partners firm and the sale proceeds should be deposited in the name of M/s Suvinita Ageneiss in a nationalised bank to get the interest thereon. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in this case the offences complained of are punishable under Sec.414 IPC and Sec.7 of the E. C. Act for the violation of Clause 3 of order 1977. The Deputy Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to start the proceedings in a case under Sec.414 I. P. C. as it can be tried by some other court and not by the Deputy Commissioner. It was further contended that there was no violation of the provisions of Order 1977 as the inspection was done on 15-5-1981 at about 6 a. m. which is apparent from the Seizure memo (Ext.4) and the same is not the business hours, so there was no violation of the provisions of Clause 3 (A) of the order of 1977 and so a proceeding for confiscation under Sec.6-A of the E. C. Act could not be started. 6. Looking to the seizure memo (Ext.4) attached with the petition it appears that the seizure has been effected on 15-5-1981 at about 6 a. m. which was not the hours of business and there is nothing in the notice to show that some business was transacted. Provisions of clauses (A) of Order 1977 come into operation if the dealer before commencement of business on any day does not display at a conspicuous place near the entrance of his business premises the list of price of the articles as mentioned in clause 3 of Order 1977. As there is nothing to show that the business had commenced so the Order of 1977 is not attracted. The questions of fact are not to be considered in the application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As there is nothing to show that the business had commenced so the Order of 1977 is not attracted. The questions of fact are not to be considered in the application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. But if from the facts it appears that the prosecution or the proceeding is without jurisdiction or in contravention of law then they can be looked into and quashed. In this case it appears that there was no violation of clause 3 (A) of Order 1977 and so the consequential proceeding for confiscation under Sec.6-A of the E. C. Act is not maintainable and so issuing of the notice to the petitioners in the circumstances of this case by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. In the result all these applications allowed and the impugned notices issued under Sec.6-A of the E. C. Act to the petitioners for showing cause are hereby quashed. Learned counsel for the State prays that as other proceedings for the prosecution of the petitioners under Sec.414 I. P. C. is still pending so this order should not have any effect upon the same. As to this contention, this proceeding for confiscation and the prosecution under Sec.4141. P. C. are different and they have different scope and procedures. This judgment will not effect in any way in the investigation and proceeding under Sec.414 I. P. C. against the petitioners. It will be for the criminal court to consider the situation as the evidence may be in the proceeding under Sec.414 I. P. C. against the petitioners. Applications allowed.