Judgment AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. This writ application under Articles 228 and 227 of the Constitution is for quashing the order, dated 24-2-1986 whereby and whereunder in exercise of powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (Respondent No. 2) has passed an order of confiscation in respect of certain articles seized front the godown belonging to the petitioner. Another application by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the order, dated 4-8-1986 taking cognizance of offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in connection with G. R. Case No. 07 of 1986 corresponding to Chakardharpur P. S. Case No. 0098 of 1985. These two applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The confiscation order and the order taking cognizance arise out of the same set of facts which may be briefly stated as follows : 3. On October 2, 1985 the Marketing Officer, Incharge, Charadharpur (respondent No. 3) submitted a written report pursuant to an inspection of a godows maintained by the petitioner. In this report it was stated that the petitioner maintained a godown in a premises other than the one mentioned in his dealors licence. On an inspection of the godown it was found that various articles enumerated in the report had been stocked there. It was also found that on the premises from where the petitioner conducted his retail shop, there was not display board stating the stock position and prices of commodities. The articles found in the godown were seized and a proposal was made for the initiation of a proceeding for the confiscation of the seized goods. On the basis of this written report, a formal first information report was also drawn up and a criminal case, registered as Chakaradharpur P. S. Case No. 0098/1985, was, instituted. This gave rise to G. R. Case No. 07/1985 in which the Special Judge ((B. C. Act) at Chaibasa by order dated 4-8-1986 took cognizance of offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. This order comes under challenge in the quashing application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This gave rise to G. R. Case No. 07/1985 in which the Special Judge ((B. C. Act) at Chaibasa by order dated 4-8-1986 took cognizance of offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. This order comes under challenge in the quashing application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The confiscation proceeding finally resulted in the order, dated 12-10-1985 whereby and whereunder excepting one bag of Golki all the articles seized in course of the inspection of the godown were confiscated and were directed to be auction sold. A photo copy of the certified copy of the order has been enclosed as Annexure-8 to this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the confiscation of the seized goods on the following two grounds : (i) The confiscation proceeding was vitiated for contravention of the provisions contained in Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act inasmuch as admittedly the written notice issued by the authority was not served on the petitioner. (ii) The inspection was held on October 2, 1985 when there was, so to say, a statutory vacuum as held by judicial pronouncements of this Court and held the question of any breach of any provision of licence issued under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 did not arise. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 6-B of the Act a written notice to the petitioner containing the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodity was a mandatory pre-condition to an order of confiscation. He further pointed out that in the impugned order itself it was admitted that the written notice to the petitioner had not been served on him as he was away to Ranchi. The authority, however, had proceeded to pass the order of confiscation on the ground that although no notice was served on the petitioner, he had, on his own. appeared in the proceeding and on various dates in the proceeding had filed petitions for adjournments in order to file his show cause. The impugned order, however, was ultimately passed ex parte in the absence of any show cause from the petitioner. appeared in the proceeding and on various dates in the proceeding had filed petitions for adjournments in order to file his show cause. The impugned order, however, was ultimately passed ex parte in the absence of any show cause from the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners appearance in the proceeding on his own was no substitute for the service of the written notice as required in law and this would not cure the fatal lacuna in the proceeding. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1978 Criminal Law Journal 672. In the reported case a Bench of this Court held as follows : "Simply because a person has got any knowledge or information aliunde of any confiscation proceeding already initiated by any Collector or authority, in our decision that would not absolve the said authority for following the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 6-B of the Act." The submission advanced by the counsel in this case is fully supported by the pronouncement of a Bench of this Court and it must be upheld and the impugned order of confiscation as contained in Annexure-8 has to be set aside on that ground alone. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was a kind of statutory vacuum between the period from 15-4-1985 to 17-10-1985 and in that view the petitioner could not be proceeded against for any breach of a licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 on the basis of an inspection held on October 2, 1985 Learned council pointed out that the effective period of licences of trade articles under the various licensing orders mentioned in Schedule III of the Unification Order was extended finally upto 15th April, 1985 under Section 3 of the Unification Order. On the other hand, the storage limit in respect of retail dealers and wholesale dealers as defined under Section 2(p) and 2(u) of the Unification Order was not fixed and notified till 17-10-1985. Accordingly, after 15th April, 1985 the licences of trade articles under various licensing orders mentioned in Schedule III of the Unification Order has lost their force. On the other hand, the storage limit not having been prescribed under the Unification Order, the Unification Order itself was not workable and had remained inoperational. Accordingly, after 15th April, 1985 the licences of trade articles under various licensing orders mentioned in Schedule III of the Unification Order has lost their force. On the other hand, the storage limit not having been prescribed under the Unification Order, the Unification Order itself was not workable and had remained inoperational. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1988 PLJR 463 : 1988 BLJR 769 . In the reported case a Bench of this Court held as follows : "His second submission is that even if the seized article was found to be gram, on the date of the seizure took place, that is, 28-10-1984, there was no order operational to cover gram or any other foodgrains because the Government had not issued any notification as required by Clause 2(u) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1S84, which order had come into operation by then. There was a vacuum for some time and this seizure occurred during that interregnum." 7. It may also be noted that this Bench decision of this Court was accorded affirmance by the Supreme Court when the Special Leave Petition filed against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order, dated 26-11-1987 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 13870 of 1987. 8. That being the position, the impugned order of confiscation dated 12-10-1985 passed in Rev. Misc. Case No. 47 of 1985-86 (copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-8) is found to be unsustainable and is hereby quashed. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Cr. Misc. No. 3932 of 1986 (R). 10. So far as the order taking cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is concerned for the reasons stated above, no prosecution of the petitioner can be sustained for any breach of any provision of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification Order, 1984. However, in the First Information Report there was also an allegation relating to the breach of the provisions of the Display Order. However, in the First Information Report there was also an allegation relating to the breach of the provisions of the Display Order. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard submitted that Clause 6 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977 provided that no prosecution could lie against a person for contravention of any of the provisions of that order unless the same had been sanctioned by the District Magistrate of Special Officer Ineharge Rationing or Additional District Magistrate (Supply) or Sub-divisional Magistrate within limits of their respective local jurisdiction. 11. The petitioner cannot be heard on this ground as there is no pleading in this regard in the application and there is no averment that the order of cognizance was passed in absence of any sanction order. Neither is there any material on record to support this plea. I, accordingly, decline to entertain this plea at this stage. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to raise this point before the learned Special Judge, who, if such a plea is raised, shall pass an order in accordance with law. 12. With these observations and directions the application for quashing is disposed of. CWJC 555 is allowed. Cr. Misc. 3932 Ordered accordingly.