A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER calls in question legality of the proceeding initiated under S. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, the Act), before the District Collector, Cuttack. The primary challenge is to the order dated 31-3-1993, directing sale of the seized articles during pendency of the proceeding. ( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts which led to the institution of the proceeding, as evident from the documents annexed to the writ application are as follows :-on 1-5-1992, 110 bundles of white papers, each bundle containing 6 reams, having size of 51 x 66 cm. and label of Surya Chandra Paper Mills Ltd. Mareduliaka (Near Mandapeta) in Andhra Pradesh were found in the business premises-cum-godown of M/s. Dharmagrantha Store, Alisabazar, Cuttack without any challan or cash memos, in support of such possession. No stock or issue register was maintained. The articles were seized. Circumstances of seizure as indicated in the seizure documents were that the authorities under the Act got credible information that the M/s. Srikrishna Trading Company, Bankabazar, Cuttack (opposite party No. 3), a partnership firm, was clandestinely carrying on business in white printing papers, colour papers, Cream wove papers and some other varieties of papers in collusion with the present petitioner and other partners of said M/s. Dharmagrantha Store which has resulted in disruption of maintenance of supply / availability of papers at fair price at the market. A report under S. 6a (1) and (2) of the Act for confiscation was submitted, for the alleged violation of Cl. 3 (2) of the Orissa Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (in short, the Order) before Collector, Cuttack. The matter was posted to 3-3-1993, on the question of sale of the seized properties during the pendency of the proceeding. The District Collector directed sale of the seized articles as the same was subject to speedy and natural decay. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. B. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, proceeding itself is misconceived because the Order applies only to a ";dealer"; and the petitioner being not a dealer, the question of his maintaining ";stock and Price Board"; in terms of the Order does not arise. It is, therefore, submitted that the interim order should not have been passed because the paper is not an article which is subject to speedy and natural decay. Mr. It is, therefore, submitted that the interim order should not have been passed because the paper is not an article which is subject to speedy and natural decay. Mr. S. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the question whether the petitioner is a dealer or not, and whether he has contravened any of the provisions of the Act can be effectively agitated in the main proceeding itself, and this Court should not interfere in the matter in its writ jurisdiction at the present juncture. ( 4 ) CLAUSE 3 of the order releates to display of list. Sub-clause (1) of the said clause, deals with the retailers who are required to display prominently in the business premises, shops or show rooms, the stock position of each essential commodity in his possession by writing on a board the words ";available"; or ";not available";, as the case may be, against each such commodity and retail selling prices thereof, each day, and indicate on each unit of item of the said commodities, where possible, the sale price by having the sale price either printed on the commodities or on the container or packet thereof, or by means of rubber stamp or by sticking a label on such commodity. The allegations against the petitioner do not relate to sub-clause (1 ). Sub-clause (2) of Cl. 3 relates to every 'dealer', except a retailer, as defined in Cl. 2 (a) ";dealer"; means any person carrying on business of selling any essential commodity, and includes a producer, wholesaler or retailer. ";producer"; has been defined in Cl. 2 (b ). Every dealer except a retailer is required under sub-clause (2) of Cl. 3, to display prominently in the business premises, shops or show rooms a list indicating the opening stock of such commodities in his possession and wholesale prices thereof each day, and indicate on each unit of item of the said commodities, where possible, the sale price by having the sale price either printed on the commodities or on the container or packet thereof, or by means of rubber stamp or by sticking a label on such commodity. ( 5 ) PROCEDURES to be adopted by every ";retailer"; and ";dealer other than retailer"; have been specified in sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Cl. 3 of the Order. ( 5 ) PROCEDURES to be adopted by every ";retailer"; and ";dealer other than retailer"; have been specified in sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Cl. 3 of the Order. A person to be treated as a dealer for the purpose of the Order must be a person carrying on business of selling any essential commodity. The provision is an inclusive one and in terms of it, a ";dealer"; includes producer, wholesaler or retailer. ";essential Commodity"; as provided in Cl. 2 (e) means any of the commodities specified in the Schedule to the Order. Undisputely (undisputably) Item No. 6 of the Schedule relates to paper of any of the six categories enumerated therein. If, therefore, the petitioner is dealing with paper by carrying on business of selling, the Order would have application to him. 5a. With reference to the counter filed by the prosecuting agency before the Collector in the proceeding under S. 6a of the Act, it is submitted that it has been fairly accepted by the prosecuting agency that M/s. Dharmagrantha Store is not a dealer within the meaning of the Order. The stand of the State is that these are aspects which can be highlighted before the Collector. ( 6 ) WE find that the primary challenge in this writ application is to the propriety of the order dated 31-3-1993 for sale of the seized articles. By order dated 8-4-1993 the sale has been stayed, subject to the stipulation that if sale had been effected, the order will not operate. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the statement in the counter filed by the prosecuting agency in the proceeding under S. 6a of the Act before the Collector, he should have disposed of the proceeding early. The continuance of the proceeding would mainly depend on adjudication of the question, whether the petitioner is a dealer. The prosecuting agency having admitted that M/s. Dharmagrantha Store was not a dealer, the Collector should have taken up the matter for final disposal instead of passing the interim order. We, therefore, vacate the interim order dated 31-3-1993 passed by the Collector in view of the undisputed position that the sale had not been effected. Section 6-A (2), empowers the Collector to pass on interlocutory order of disposal of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where it is in public interest to do so. We, therefore, vacate the interim order dated 31-3-1993 passed by the Collector in view of the undisputed position that the sale had not been effected. Section 6-A (2), empowers the Collector to pass on interlocutory order of disposal of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where it is in public interest to do so. Unless there is a finding that the seized article was either subject to speedy or natural decay or it was necessary in public interest; the order of disposal is indefensible. Paper is not an article which is subject to speedy and natural decay. The expression ";decay"; means to become decomposed, full of pieces, disintegrate, rot. Though long storage may bring loss of utility and quality due to damage by moth etc. change in colour etc. action in terms of Section 6-A (2) on the ground that it is subject to speedy and normal decay would not be proper. It would all depend upon the period during which the proceeding can be finalised. If it is unusually delayed, the Collector can decide whether interim disposal would be proper. The position would be different where disposal is directed on the ground that it is necessary to do so in public interest. The Collector would do well to dispose of the main proceeding by the end of April, 1995, taking into consideration the respective stands of the parties. To avoid unnecessary delay, the parties are directed to appear before the Collector on the 28th of March, 1995 without further notice. ( 8 ) THE writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. D. M. PATNAIK, J. I agree. Application allowed. .