Judgment B.C.BASAK, J. 1. Heard in view of the very fair stand taken by the learned Advocates appearing in this case, we dispose on this writ application by passing the following orders : 2. This writ application was originally to be listed after the disposal of the Cr. W.J.C. No. 130 of 1990 (R). However, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that in this particular case, inspection of the business premises of the petitioner was made on 3-6-1988 on the basis of the notification, dated 21-11-1987. This notification itself has been quashed by this Court on the ground that such a notification was invalid and not tenable in law. It is stated on behilf of the petitioner that the present writ petition is concerned with the invalid notification, whereas the judgment delivered in Cr. W.J.C. No. 130 of 1990 (R) was based on a subsequent notification issued on 23-7-1990. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has fairly conceded that the present case shall not be governed by the judgment delivered in Cr.W.J.C. No. 130 of 1990 (R) or any other case. 4. In that view of the matter, the inspection having been made pursuant to the notification, dated 21-11-1987, which has been declared void and invalid ab initio we allow this application, quash Annexures 1, 2 and 5 to the writ application. 5. We, however, make it clear that this order will not prevent the appropriate authority from taking any other action in accordance with law, if so advised.