Judgment NARBDESHWAR PANDEY, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the seizure of rice, wheat, chura, and pulses from the premises of the petitioner, made by respondent No. 3, as also for quashing of the on prosecution, launched on the basis of the aforementioned seizure in Tajpur Police Station Case No. 213 of 1990, instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The short fact of the case is that on 24-8-1990 the Block Supply Officer, Morwa Block, Samastipur Respondent No. 3) inspected the premises of the petitioner. He, having found that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Bihar Trades Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, as also the provisions of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order. 1977. seized the commodities, available in the premises, and thereafter, lodged the First Information Report. The copies of the seizure list and the First Information Report are Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application respectively. 3. Learned counsel, appearing for the petioner submitted that on 24-8-1990 when the articles were seized, there was no order in operation to cover the foodgrains because the State Government, had not issued any notification, fixing storage limit, as required under Clause 2 (p) and (u) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order. 1984 (hereinafter to be referred as the Unification Order). According to him. the notification dated 21-11-1987, issued by the State Government, fixing the storage limit of rice, wheat and pulses, has already been struck down by this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 721 of 1989 (R). Thereafter, till the day when the premises in question was inspected, no notification was issued. Therefore, it is urged that the entire prosecution as also the seizure of the commodities are illegal and fit to be quashed. In support of the aforesaid, reliance has been made to a case of M/s. Rajesh Trading Company v. The State of Bihar and others, 1988 PLJR 463 : 1988 BLJR 769 . It has been held that in absence of a valid notification, fixing storage limit under Clause 2 (p) and (u), defining the whole-seller and retail dealer, no prosecution can be launched for contravention of the Unification Order. 4. It has been held that in absence of a valid notification, fixing storage limit under Clause 2 (p) and (u), defining the whole-seller and retail dealer, no prosecution can be launched for contravention of the Unification Order. 4. In reply to the aforesaid, a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it is stated that in fact on 23-8-1990 a Gazette Notification, fixing the storage limit, as required under Clause 2 (o) and (u), was published. The inspection of the shop was made on 24-8-1990, therefore, on that date there was a valid notification, as required. This assertion of the State has been challenged by the petitioner, stating that on 29-8-1990 the matter for printing the Gazette was sent in Gulzarbag Government Press, Patna, and on 26-11-1980 the Gazette was sent in the Sale-auction for sale. A Bench of this Court, noticing the aforesaid controversy, directed the Slate Government to produce all the relevant documents, showing on which date the notification dated 23-8-1390 was published. However, such documents have not bee produced nor any affidavit, controverting the aforesaid allegation, has been filed. 5. He next contended that the Block Supply Officer was not empowered for entry, inspection, search or seizure of the premises under the provisions of the Bihar Essential Articles ((Display of Prices and Stocks) Order. 1977 (hereinafter to be referred as the Display Order). Clause 6 of the Display Order discloses about the authorities, who are empowered to conduct" the search and seizure. 6. From a bare reference to Clause (6) of the Display Order, it is apparent that Block Supply Officer has not been authorised by the Government. In that view of the matter, there is no other source but to hold that the search and seizure conducted by the Block Supply Officer, was in violation of the provisions of Clause (6) of the Display Order. To support the aforesaid proposition, reference can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Pansari v. The State of Bihar and others, 1988 PLJR 623 : 1989 East Cr C 373. 7. It has been next contended that entire prosecution against the petitioner is also bad for want of a valid sanction under the provisions of Display Order. The proviso to Clause (6) of the Display Order is as follows : "Provided that no prosecution shall lie. 7. It has been next contended that entire prosecution against the petitioner is also bad for want of a valid sanction under the provisions of Display Order. The proviso to Clause (6) of the Display Order is as follows : "Provided that no prosecution shall lie. against a person for contravention of any of the provisions of this Order unless the same has been sanctioned by the District Magistrate or Special Officer Incharge Rationing or Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Sub-Divisional Magistrate within limits of their respective local jurisdiction." 8. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that in the First Information Report itself it is mentioned that sanction of the competent authority for prosecution was obtained. But no copy of the order, showing sanction of the competent authority, has been brought on the record. From the First Information Report it only appears that the inspection of the premises of M/s. Bajrang Galla Bhandar, Tajpur, was made. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner, who was the proprietor of the said firm. As proviso of Clause (6) says in clear and ambiguous words that no prosecution shall lie against a person for contravention of any of the provisions of Display Order, unless the same has been sanctioned by the competent outhority. This question has been considered in several cases including these two cases by this Court, namely, (1) Puran Mai v. State of Bihar. 1983 PLJR 73 as also (2) Nawaj Sultania v. State of Bihar, 1968 PLJR 500. It has been held that in view of the proviso aforesaid, the prosecution must be sanctioned with reference to the accused concerned. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. In absence of any other material, contrary to above. I am left with no option but to hold that the institution of the prosecution are bad and, accordingly, the same is fit to be quashed. 9. With respect to the pulses, seized in this case, it has been urged that, no licence fee has yet been prescribed for obtaining the licence under the provisions of Unification Order so far it relates pulses. 9. With respect to the pulses, seized in this case, it has been urged that, no licence fee has yet been prescribed for obtaining the licence under the provisions of Unification Order so far it relates pulses. In case of Satya Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1988 PLJR 502, as also in the case of Om Prakash Bhartiya v, State of Bihar and others (CrWJC No. 412 of 1991) it has been held that in absence of licence fee, having been prescribed under the aforesaid order, pulses cannot be said to have been brought within the purview of the order Learned counsel, appearing for the State, has not been able to controvert the aforesaid costs. 10. In that view of the matter, it is held that even if the allegations, made in the First Information Report, are given the face value and taken to be correct, no prosecution can be allowed to continue on account of infirmities, mentioned above. Therefore, the prosecution has to be quashed. Since the petition succeeds on the basis of the findings, recorded above, it is not necessary to enter into the controvercial question of fact, whe ther there was as all any notification, as required under the law on the day of search and seizure of the premises. No doubt the petitioner has made specific everments on affidavit that on 24-8-1990 there was no Gazette publication. It has also been said that for the first time on 29-8-1990 the materials were sent to the Government Press for printing of the Gazette. 11. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, I am of the view that the continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court and, as such, it is fit to be quashed. 12. In the result, this application is allowed and the entire prosecution as well as the seizure of the commodities are hereby quashed. OM PRAKASH, J. 13 I agree.