Judgment 1. The petitioner in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has prayed for quashing the complaint case registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act including the seizure of pulses dated 22.10.1993 as contained in Annexure 1/A. Further prayer has been made for release of the seized articles forthwith. 2. While admitting this application by order dated 22.12.1993 the seized articles were released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing security. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has firstly contended that the allegations contained in the complaint petition do not constitute an offence inasmuch as in view of several decisions of this Court the petitioner is not required to obtain licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences and Unification) Order, 1987 (shortly Unification Order). His contention is that as the fees for obtaining licence have not been prescribed, there is no question of obtaining a licence under the Unification Order. Secondly, it is contended that there having no storage limit, the petitioner cannot be said to have violated any clause of the Unification Order. Lastly it is contended that Senior Marketing Officer, Rationing, namely, Jai Prakash Mallick, was not competent to make search and seizure and, as such, the seizure itself is vitiated in law. 4. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Government Pleader No. 1, on the other hand, refuting the argument of Mr. Sinha, has submitted that from the allegations made in the complaint it is crystal clear that the accused has contravened the provisions of the clauses of the Pulse, Edible Oils Seeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) Order, 1977 (in short Central Order) and, as such, liable to be proceeded against. In this context he has referred to clause (3) of the Central Order and submits that storage of pluses has been mentioned in this clause and as such, it cannot be said that the accused cannot be proceeded against because there is no stock limit under the Unification Order. His argument is that in the present case the Unification Order is not applicable, rather, the Central Order comes into play. His argument is that in the present case the Unification Order is not applicable, rather, the Central Order comes into play. Secondly it is contended that the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, has no locus standi to pray before this Court for quashing the proceeding inasmuch as he is not an accused, rather, one Bijay Kumar Agarwal has been named in the complaint petition as the accused. 5. The question of applicability of the Central Order was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Satya Narain Prasad v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1988 PLJR 502. Refuting the argument on behalf of the State Government his lordships held that unless there is State order in force at the material time, a dealer cannot obtain licence for dealing in pluses. After noticing several decisions of this point his lordship has held that the question of violation of clause (3) of the Unification Order or violation of clause (3) of the Central Order did not arise at all in that case. In the case of Mahendra Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others, report in 1993 East Cr C 586 (Pat), a Division Bench of this Court having taken note of the case of Satya Narain Prasad (supra) has quashed the first information report while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned G.P.I. has not been able to distinguish the aforesaid decisions with reference to any other case law. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case it has to be held that the applicability of the Central Order depends on the existence of any State Order covering the subject as the Central Order provides for obtaining licence under the State Order which is in force and, thus, when no storage limit was fixed for pluses under any Bihar Order, violation of the Central Order cannot be alleged. 8. However, second contention of learned G.P.I. is well founded. The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal is admittedly not an accused. The complaint petition alleges violation of certain Orders against accused, Bijay Kumar Agarwal who has not approached this Court and, as such, the proceeding against him, in our considered opinion, cannot be quashed at the instance of petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal. 9. Faced with this hurdle Mr. The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal is admittedly not an accused. The complaint petition alleges violation of certain Orders against accused, Bijay Kumar Agarwal who has not approached this Court and, as such, the proceeding against him, in our considered opinion, cannot be quashed at the instance of petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal. 9. Faced with this hurdle Mr. Sinha has submitted that the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Agarwal being the owner of the articles seized, the interim order of release granted by this Court while admitting this application be confirmed. In our view, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction will not decide the question of fact as to whether he is or not the owner of the seized articles. He may approach the concerned Court in this regard. 10. In the result, we find no merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without cost.