Judgment Om Prakash, J. 1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of confiscation order dated 31.3.1989 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur, in E.C. Act Case No. 82/88-89 exercising power under sections 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act confiscating rice, wheat, pulses, etc. seized from the business premises of the petitioner on 30th July, 1988 alleging violation of the provisions of Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Stocks and Prices) Order, 1977, and Bihar Trade Articles Licences (Unification) Order, 1984. 2. It appears that on 30th July, 1988 a D.S.P., C.I.D. Inspector of Police, C.I.D. (Food) led a raiding party comprising of a number of (Food), raided petitioners business premises and seized certain quantities of rices, wheat, pulses etc. on the ground of violation of the provisions of the orders referred to above. In due course F.I.R. (Annexure 2) was lodged by one of the Police Inspector, C.I.D. (Food), Bhagalpur, who was member of the raiding party. Subsequently, confiscation Case No. 82/88-89 was initiated against the petitioner and by order dated 31st March, 1989, the seized food grains were confiscated (Annexure 4). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged such confiscation order on the ground that the entire seizure by a D.S.P., C.I.D. (Food) or an inspector of Police, C.I.D. (Food) is illegal and without jurisdiction. Neither the D.S.P., C.I.D. (Food) nor Inspector of Police, C.I.D. (Food), who lodged F.I.R. was legally competent to make search and seizure as none of them was empowered to do so on 30th July, 1988, by the State Government before 28th July, 1992. Inviting court attention to Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 28th July, 1992, he has submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (Food) and Inspector of Police, C.I.D. (Food) have been empowered to make search and seizure under G.S.R. 31 dated 28th July, 1992. 4. It has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the State before me that the D.S.P., C.I.D. (Food) or Inspector of Police, C.I.D. (Food) was not empowered to make search and seizure in question on 30th July, 1988, and they have been empowered to make search and seizure only on 28th July, 1992, under the said C.S.R. 31 dated 28th July, 1992. 5. 5. A copy of Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 28th July, 1992, has been produced which shown that under G.S.R. 31, dated 28th July 1992, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (Food) and Inspector of Police, C.I.D. (Food) have been conferred such powers by amending the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 published under Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar Notification No. G.S.R. 9th dated 9th April, 1984. 6. Thus, it is crystal clear that neither the D.S.P., C.I.D. (Food), who led the raiding party and held inspection nor the inspector of Police, C.I.D. (Food), who lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner, had any power under the law to make search and seizure of the food grains in question. In this view of the matter, the order of confiscation-dated 31.3.1989 (Annexure 4) is unsustainable and illegal, as the search and seizure had no legal sanction. 7. In the case of Roshan Lal Arjun Lal V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.1, D.S.P., C.I.D. (Food) had made seizure on 3rd December, 1990 but he was not competent under the law to make seizure on that date. Often it was held that the search and seizure made by D.S.P., C.I.D. (Food) was illegal and confiscation proceeding before the collector was quashed. 8. In view of the above, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 31st March, 1989, passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur, in Confiscation Case No. 82/88-89, State V/s. Shyamsunder Agrawal, is hereby quashed. 9. The Court has been informed that the seized food grains have already been released against proper security by order-dated 21.4.1989. In such case, sureties shall stand discharged.