Judgment Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm carrying on business in fertiliser holding certificate of registration under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter the Control Order). The principal place of business of the firm is at Bajpatti in the district of Sitamarhi from where alone sales of fertilisers are effected. In this writ application, the petitioner-firm seeks quashing of the seizure of fertiliser effected by the Block Agriculture Officer-respondent No. 5, criminal prosecution as also of the entire confiscation proceeding pending before the Collector- respondent no. 3. 2. The facts of the case lie within a short compass. Respondent no. 5 filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Town P.S. Sitamarhi copy of which is Annexure 2/A alleging that acting on information received, the informant along with Others including the Block Development officer raided Sita Ram Rice Mill on 7.9.1991 at 4 p.m. and found the godown locked. The lock was sealed. On information, the proprietor of the firm sent his representative and in his presence on 13.9.1991, the lock of the godown was opened and 7441 bags and 9 open bags of fertilisers were recovered and seized. At the time of seizure, a stock register of urea for the year 1991-92 was also seized which was duly verified under the signature of the District Agriculture Officer dated 18.6.1991. Since the place of business of the petitioner-firm was Bajpatti, the storage of the fertiliser bags at Sita Ram Mills was treated to be unauthorised. On the basis of the written repot, the police registered a criminal case and started investigation and a confiscation proceeding in respect of the fertilisers seized, was also started by respondent no. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if all the allegations made in the F.I.R. are believed and are taken on their face value and in their entirety, no offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act had been disclosed against the petitioner firm and hence, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner-firm on the basis of the alleged seizure made as also the confiscation proceeding in respect of the fertilisers seized, pending before the Collector, are abuse of the process of the court and deserve to be quashed in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court. 4. 4. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner-firm is that the certificate of registration granted to the petitioner- firm under the Order did not prohibit the petitioner-firm from storing fertilisers at a place other than the place of business. Admittedly, the place of business under the certificate of registration of the firm was Bajpatti. Learned counsel referred to Clause (4) of the certificate of registration which requires the holders of the certificate to report to the registering authority from time to time any change in the premises of the sale depot and the godown attached to the sale depot. The petitioner-firm has, in its writ application, narrated the circumstance in which the fertilisers had been stored at the Rice Mills instead of Bajpatti. The petitioner claims that in June, 1981, he received information that a rack loaded with urea was to be despatched from Namrup in the State of Assam by the Hindustan Corporation Limited. The petitioner-firm was required to lift the stock which was due to arrive at Sitamarhi Railway Station in July, 1991. On account of the road bridge leading to Bajpatti being damaged, the petitioner was not in a position to obtain delivery of the fertilisers at Sitamarhi and then bring them to Bajpatti for storage or for sale. It was under these unavoidable circumstances that the firm took on rent a godown in Sita Ram Rice Mill in Rajopatti for the purpose of storing the fertilisers as and when received from Sitamarhi Railway Station. A separate stock register for the fertilisers to be stored at the said godown, was opened and the District Agriculture Officer had duly authenticated and certified the stock register of the petitioner- firm on 18.6.1991. The District Agriculture Officer who authenticated the stock register was the authority competent to issue certificate of registration as he happened to be the registering authority. 5. The first information report alleged that the fertilisers should have been stored at Bajpatti as the petitioner-firm was authorised to store them at Bajpatti only and its storage at Sita Ram Rice Mills was against the rules. 5. The first information report alleged that the fertilisers should have been stored at Bajpatti as the petitioner-firm was authorised to store them at Bajpatti only and its storage at Sita Ram Rice Mills was against the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under the terms and conditions of certificate of registration, there was no legal obligation cast on the dealer of fertilisers to store the fertilisers only at the place of business and such storage could be made either at the sale depot or godowns attached to the sale depot. 6. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State-respondents was filed in course of hearing today although its copy had been received by the petitioner a long time back. It is stated that the godown was inspected and fertilisers seized in the presence of the Prakhand Vikas Padadhikari on whose direction, the inspection was made and in the circumstances, there was no merit in the contention that the Prakhand Krishi Padadhikari, not being an inspector of fertilisers, could not have made the inspection and seizure and file the written report. While not denying that the petitioner-firm held a certificate of registration, it is contended that although the road was not accessible on account of damage to the bridge, nothing prevented the petitioner-firm from getting the bags of urea carried to the place of business at Bajpatti through railway. 7. Learned Standing Counsel-7 was fair enough to concede in course of argument that the stock register was also-seized bearing the signature of the District Agriculture Officer and the said fact is also stated in so many words in the counter affidavit. It thus follows that the stock of fertilisers found and seized from Sita Ram Rice Mills at Rajopatti, was stored there with the knowledge of the District Agriculture Officer who happens to be the registering authority under the said Control Order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Agriculture Officer is the registering authority appointed by the State Government under Clause 26 of the Control Order, and this is not disputed by the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Form-B of the certificate of Registration issued under clause (9) of the Order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Agriculture Officer is the registering authority appointed by the State Government under Clause 26 of the Control Order, and this is not disputed by the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Form-B of the certificate of Registration issued under clause (9) of the Order. One of the terms and conditions of certificate of registration provides that the holder of the certificate shall, from time to time, report to the registering authority any change in the premises of sale depot and godown attached to the sale depot. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner-firm that the aforesaid provision of the certificate of registration, left no room for doubt that there could be a change in the premises of the sale depot and the godown attached to the sale depot and all that the firm was required to do, was to report the change to the registering authority. Since the stock register seized in course of the inspection of the godown bore the endorsement of the District Agriculture Officer, the registering authority, a fact admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit, there was no room for doubt that the storage of the fertilisers in the godown where they were found, had been reported by the petitioner-firm to the registering authority. In the circumstances, it is not understandable as to why and under what compulsion, the Prakhand Krishi Padadhikari who happened to be subordinate to the District Agriculture Officer, chose to file a written report for prosecution of the petitioner-firm on account of storage of the fertilisers in a godown other than the sale depot of the firm. 8. In view of what has been stated above, it appears that the petitioner-firm had not violated any terms and conditions of the certificate of registration granted to it under the Control Orders and its criminal prosecution on the basis of the written report filed by respondent no. 5 as also the confiscation proceedings instituted by the Collector, respondent no. 3, was an abuse of the process of the court and deserved to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 9. The writ application is, therefore, allowed and the criminal prosecution of the petitioner-firm as also the confiscation proceeding are quashed. The petitioner-firm thus stand discharged from the security bond already executed by it.