Judgment A.N. Chaaturvedi, J. This is a petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of 171.955 metric tonnes of alack coal and 72 metric tones of steam coal which was sized on 21.8.1991 by Sri Braj Nandan Singh Supply Inspector (Opposite Party No. 3), Who is the information of the informant of the case in Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 273 of 1991 during the course of said in the business of the premises petitioner on 21.8.1991. 2. From the petitioner and first information report (annexure 1) it appears that on 21.8.1991 business of M/s Manoj Coal Company of which the petitioner is the proprietor was raided by the supply inspector Braj Nandan Singh (O.P. No. 3) accompanied by the district supply Officer Samastipur and police force. The moment of the raiding party entered the gate of the premises Kanhaiy Sah fled away. Inside the premises three persons were sitting at wooden cot (chouki) and three persons who were standing were taking with them regarding sale and purchase of coal. While the raiding party was engaged in inspection of coal and display board three standing persons who were talking with those standing on wooden cot fled away but the three persons who were waiting something while sitting at wooden cot were caught. On being asked the arrested persons gave out their as Pramod Kumar, Anirudh Prasad Singh and Lalit Kumar Dus. The Person Who gave out his name as pramod Kumar affixed his signature as Pramod Kumar on the stork registrar of M/s Manoj Coal Company but subsequently it transpired that the person who give out his name as Pramod Kumar was in fact Binod Kumar who is also coal against of district. Anrudh Prasad Singh and Lalit Kumar Das were also coal against of district. During the course of inspection it was found that the entry on the display board was dated 20.8.1991 and in the column of stock only ‘Yess’ had been written and in this way the display board was not up to date. Anrudh Prasad Singh and Lalit Kumar Das were also coal against of district. During the course of inspection it was found that the entry on the display board was dated 20.8.1991 and in the column of stock only ‘Yess’ had been written and in this way the display board was not up to date. In the stock registrar stock of slack coal had been show as 171.955 metric tones and the stock of steam coal had been shown as 72 metric tones but on the display board the stock had not been shown like that which amounted to violation of the provision of Bihar Essential Articles (display of prices and stock) Order 1977. On verification of the stock only 122.245 metric tonnes of slack coal and 28.194 metric tonnes of steam coal were found and in this way there was shortage of 49.710 metric tonnes of slack coal and 49.805 metric tonnes of steam coal which amounted to violation of the terms and conditions of licence issued under the provisions of Bihar Tread Articles (Licenes Unification) Order 1984. During inspection of the premises of M/s Manoj Coal Company several papers regarding illegal seal of coal were recovered from the wooden cot wooden almirah wooden box drawer of the wooden cot and from beneath the bad which were sized under seizure list. There papers show that petitioner Kanhaiya Sah who has a licence as retail coal dealer in conspiracy with fled coal agents and some other coal dealers of the district was engaged in illegal tread of coal. Several papers including railway receipt printed pads containing authority clips Bijak coercing coal and several pass books and account pays cheque books in different name were recovered from the business premises of M/s Manoj Coal Company. The details of such papers have been given in the first information Report (Annexure 1) and the seizure list attached there with. Those papers as per allegation in the first information report show black marketing in coal worth more then Rs.3565014 = 00. on raid the business promises of those retail dealers whose papers were found in the premises of M/s Manoj coal Company were found closed and on enquiry it transpired that the retail coal calers sit in the business of M/s Manoj Coal Company and sell coal @ Rs.70-75 Per 40Kg which is more then the fixed rate. on raid the business promises of those retail dealers whose papers were found in the premises of M/s Manoj coal Company were found closed and on enquiry it transpired that the retail coal calers sit in the business of M/s Manoj Coal Company and sell coal @ Rs.70-75 Per 40Kg which is more then the fixed rate. Accordingly the supply inspector (O.P. No. 3) lodged F.I.R. against nine persons as named in the First information Report and the police registered Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 273 dated 22.8.1991 under section 7 of the Essential commodities Act and under section 420, 465, 463, 468, 471 and 110B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It may be pointed out that this criminal Miscellaneous petition was admitted for hearing on 20.1.1993 subsequently another petition dated 5.4.1993 under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing confiscation dated 2.3.1993 (Annexure 7) passed by the collector, Samastipur in case No. 121 of 1991 (State of Bihar Versus Kanhaiya Sah) and the consequent order dated 18.3.1993 (Annexure 8) passed by the sub-divisional Officer Samastipur and for treating the petition as part of the main petition. By order dated 20.6.1993 the petition was ordered to be considered at the time of first hearing of the application and accordingly the same is also being considered. 4. As mentioned above those is allegation in the First Information Report to the affect that the petitioners and other were selling coal at the rates higher then those fixed by the learned Council for the petitioner that no price for nothing coal had been fixed by the Government at the relevant time and hence fixed and confiscated coal should be released as the seizure and confiscation was illegal. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it has been asserted on behalf of the State that price of Coal had been fixed by the Government. This assertion had been denied in para 5 of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner. So there is oath against oath in this regard. The fact being disputed it is neither desirable nor expedient for this court to go into this question which will be scrutinised in trial. This assertion had been denied in para 5 of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner. So there is oath against oath in this regard. The fact being disputed it is neither desirable nor expedient for this court to go into this question which will be scrutinised in trial. In this connection it was pointed out by the learned council for the Opposite Party that sale of coal in black market is not the only ground for seizure and confiscation of the coal and that being so the seized coal cannot be released even if it is accepted for argument take by that no price for sale of coal by the dealers had been fixed by the Government. 5. Referring to para 14 of the main petition it was pointed out by the learned council for the Opposite parties that the petitioner was a were of the initiation of proceeding under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act by the Collector for confiscation of the seized coal but in spite of the petitioner did not contest the same for saving the seized coal from confiscation and for setting the same released. Referring to section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act it was contended on be half of the opposite parties that forum has been provided for preferring appeal against an order of confiscation under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act but the petitioner in stead of availing that from has invoked the inherent powers of this courts which is not ordinarily exercised when there is specific provision for redressed of the grievances of the aggrieved party. In this connection it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that no such objection having been raised by the State at the time of admission of the petitioner such objection cannot be raised at the time of hearing. As mentioned earlier the main petition under section 482 of the code of criminal Procedure was admitted on 20.1.1993 where confiscation order (Annexure 7) was passed on 2.3.1993. In view of this it was conceded on behalf of State that there was no question of raising objection at the time of admission. The learned council for the petitioner further contended that the petition having been admitted for having it should not be thrown on the ground of alternative remedy. In view of this it was conceded on behalf of State that there was no question of raising objection at the time of admission. The learned council for the petitioner further contended that the petition having been admitted for having it should not be thrown on the ground of alternative remedy. Is support of this contention the learned council referred to he decisions reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 536, AIR 1971 SC 33 , AIR 1978 SC 47 and 1978 PLJR 1150. Aforesaid case except one reported in AIR 1978 SC 47 are regarding invoking the write jurisdiction of the court but the decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 47 is with regard to exercise of inherent power of the High Court for Quashing an interlocutory order and the Supreme Court stated the principal in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court for quashing an interjectory order. In the instant case the question involved is concerning release of seized coal which been subsequently confiscated and not concerning exercise of inherent power against any interlocutory order. However it is not disputed by the learned council for the Opposite parties that petitioner even under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure once having been admitted has to be disposed of on merit. 6. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the seized of coal itself was illegal and valid seizure sine quanon for stating confiscation proceeding the confiscation order (Annexure 7) passed by the collector is liable to be quashed. In support of this contention the learned council referred to1985 PLJR 1077 (Surendra Prasad and Another Versus The State of Bihar and other). In that case the seizure of fertilizer had been made by the Aushal Adhikari who was not competent authority to do so under the provision of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 and hence it was held that seizure was had and since valid seizure and confiscation proceeding seizure and confiscation order were quashed. In the instant case the petition is not like that as the seized has been made by a Supply Inspector who as per the provision of Clause 6 of Bihar Essential Articles (display of price and stocks) Order 1977 is competent to do so. 7. In the instant case the petition is not like that as the seized has been made by a Supply Inspector who as per the provision of Clause 6 of Bihar Essential Articles (display of price and stocks) Order 1977 is competent to do so. 7. As per allegation in the First violation of the provisions of Bihar Essential Act (display of price and stocks) Order also referring to proviso to Clause Bihar Essential display of prices stocks) Order 1977 it was contended behalf of petitioner that no prosecution shall be against a provision for contravention of any of the provisions of this order unless the same has been sanctioned by District Magistrate or Special Officer Incharge. Rationing or Additional District Magistrate (supply) Sub-divisional Magistrate within the limits of their respective local jurisdiction and since there is no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner the enters prosecution is illegal and under the circumstances the confiscation order is fit to be quashed and the seized coal is fit to be released. In support of this contention the learned council for the petitioner referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 (R.P. Kapoor Vs. The State of Panjab) 1987 PLJR 678 (srilal Saraf Vs. The State of Bihar) 1987 PLJR 670 (M/s Prem Trading Company and other Vs. The State of Bihar) 1988 PLJR 500 (Sri Niwas Sultania Vs. The State of Bihar) 1983 PLJR 73 (Pooranmal Vs. The State of Bihar) and AIR 1979 SC 677 (Md. Ikbal Ahmad Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh). In this connection the learned council for the Opposite Parties referred to Annexure D to the counter affidavit and pointed out that there is sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of Clause 6 of the said order. This contention of the learned council for the Opposite Parties finds support from Annexure D. 8. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the sanction order (Annexure D) dose not disclose application of mind in according sanction and the factum of sanction has neither been mentioned in the First Information Report nor copy thereof was attached therewith and under the circumstances there was no valid sanction and hence the prosecution seizure and confiscation are illegal. In this connection the learned council for the petitioner referred to a decision of the Supreme Court Reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866 (R.P. Kappor Vs. The State of Panjab) in which it has been held by the Supreme Court that in absence of requisite sanction of inherent power by the High Court. It may be pointed out that the instant case is not for quashing the criminal prosecution lunched against the petitioner rather it is for release of seized coal and for confiscation. Apart from that the sanction order (Annexure D) is there. Since criminal prosecution is pending against the petitioner it is neither desirable nor expedient to go into question if there was application of mind or not while according sanction for the prosecution. According to leaned council for opposite parties Annexure D prima facie show application of mind. It is true that there is no mention of sanction order in the First Information Report but the sanction order (Annexure D) appears to have been passed on the dates the First Information Report was ledged. Whether the sanction order is out dated as contended by the learned council for the petitioner or not will be gone into at the time of trial of the criminal case launched against the petitioner. 9. Referring to the confiscation order (Annexure 7) it was contended by the learned council for the petitioner that the same dose not mention as to which provision of display order has been violated and mere mention that there was violation of Bihar Essential Articles (display of price and stocks) Order 1977 is not enough and that being so the confiscation order is bad in low and fit to be quashed. In support of this contention the learned council for the petitioner referred to a bench decision of this court reported in 1988 PLJR 732 (Shanti Trading Company and other Vs. The State of Bihar). In the said case it was held that before passing an order of confiscation under section 6A of Essential Commodities Act the authority must establish clearly which provision of an order has been violation of an order is not enough. The State of Bihar). In the said case it was held that before passing an order of confiscation under section 6A of Essential Commodities Act the authority must establish clearly which provision of an order has been violation of an order is not enough. A perusal of the order of confiscation (Annexure 7) show that the confiscating authority has simply mentioned that the petitioner has violated the terms and condition of his licence as well as the provision of display order but has not specifically mentioned the terms of licence and provision of display order which according to him have been violated. That being so, the order of confiscation is undoubtedly bad in low. 10. The learned council for the petitioner also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1977 Cr. Low Journal 1146 (Dr. Sarda Prasad Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar). That was the case under Bihar and Orissa Exercise Act. It was found by the Supreme Court that allegation in complaint or charge sheet did not constitute any office and complaint also did not disclosed which condition of licence was broken and hence quashed the cognizance. It may be pointed out that in the instant case the question of setting aside cognizance is not involved rather it is for quashing the order of confiscation. So the above ruling is distinguishable. 11. The learned council further referred to a decision reported in 1977 BBCJ 151 (M/s Md. Ayub Bismillah Rice Oil Mills Vs. Collector of West Champaran and other. In that case notice under section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act had been issued without having and details of violation of the licensing order and the order of confiscation had been passed on the ground of contravention which was further not correct and hence the writ petition was allowed and confiscation was quashed in the instant case, there is no allegation to the aforesaid effect and hence, the said case appears to be distinguishable. 12. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that there was any weighment of the seized coal at the time of seized and the being there is no basis to show that there was shortage of stock as shown in the stock registrar and that found in the business premises. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that there was any weighment of the seized coal at the time of seized and the being there is no basis to show that there was shortage of stock as shown in the stock registrar and that found in the business premises. In this connection the learned council of the opposite parties referred to the F.I.R. (page 2) and pointed out that it has been specificaily mentioned that on actual verification the shortage in stock as mentioned therein was found. 13. It was lastly contended on behalf of the petitioner that display of price and stock is required on the date the business premises are open for business purpose and not on the date the shop is closed. In support of this contention, the learned council for the petitioner referred to decision of this court reported in 1977 BBCJ 568 (B. Kumar Agrawal Vs. The State of Bihar). The said decision undoubtedly supports the above contention of the leaned council for the petitioner but it was rightly pointed out by the learned council for the State that as per allegation in the F.I.R. the business premises of the petitioner was open when the Raiding party reached there the even there persons who were negotiating for purchase and State of coal and the being so, it can not be said that the shop was closed at the time of raid and hence no display of prices and stocks was required. It was also pointed out that under the circumstances the decision is not attracted to the facts of this case. 14. In view of what has been pointed out above this much is apparent that the order of confiscation (Annexure 7) is bad in law and the same as well as the consequent order as contained in Annexure 8 are liable to be quashed. 15. 14. In view of what has been pointed out above this much is apparent that the order of confiscation (Annexure 7) is bad in law and the same as well as the consequent order as contained in Annexure 8 are liable to be quashed. 15. It is not disputed that Criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner is pending Sub-section 2 of section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act as substituted by Bihar Act 9 of 1978 provides that were an order under section 6A of the Essential Commodities is modified or annulled or were in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been under section 6A the person concerned is acquitted and in either case it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized such person shall save as provided by sub-section (3) of section 6Abe paid the price therefore as if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the date of seizure of the essential commodity. In the instant case the order of confiscation was passed on 2.3.1993 i.e. mere then two year ago and the consequent order (Annexure 8) deputing a Magistrate for gating the confiscated coal sold and for depositing the sale proceeds in treasury was passed on 18.3.1993 i.e. more then two years ago. Through in para 4 of petition dated 5.4.1993 which was filed more then two years ago, it has been stated that the confiscated coal has not yet been sold but what is the petition in this regard at the present is not known. There is no further affidavit by the petitioner to the effect that the confiscated coal has not been sold as yet. 16. Under the circumstances it is hereby ordered that the confiscated coal be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the collector of the District concerned. In case the seized coal has been sold the sale proceeds there of shall be released in favour of petitioner on his furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the collector of the district. This Criminal Miscellaneous case is disposed of accordingly. Application disposed.