Order The petitioners herein have prayed for the quashing of the seizure list, Annexure-2, and also for quashing of the confiscation proceeding started by the Collector-cum-district Magistrate. West Champaran, Bettiah, respondent No. 2 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by issuance of notice dated 1.10.92, Annexure-3. They have also prayed for release of the seized goods. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are petty traders and they deal in some of the trade articles covered by the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. Their case, however, is that they are not required to take out a licence under the said Order because the trade articles stocked by them is less than the quantity prescribed under the aforesaid Order. Their case is that on 10.8.1992 they had made certain purchases of trade articles at Bagaha and were transporting the same on a tractor to the places where they carry on their business. While those trade articles were being carried in a tractor, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Ramnagar, respondent No. 3 stopped the tractor and seized the trade articles carried in the said tractor. He also seized the tractor which was carrying the trade articles. On the basis of his report, the Collector initiated a confiscation proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. Two submissions have been urged before us by counsel for the petitioners. It is firstly submitted that an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is not authorised to search seize and remove the stock of trade articles under the provisions of the Unification Order. Therefore, the seizure by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is illegal, and consequently the subsequent proceeding is also vitiated. Secondly, it was submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that they were carrying the trade articles for sale in the black mark. According to the petitioners, there is no statutory fixation of price of the trade articles which were carried by the petitioners. Secondly, the allegation that the trade articles were being carried for being sold in the black market was a baseless allegation as there was nothing to show that the petitioners had sold any part of their stock to anyone at any price higher than the statutory price fixed. Secondly, the allegation that the trade articles were being carried for being sold in the black market was a baseless allegation as there was nothing to show that the petitioners had sold any part of their stock to anyone at any price higher than the statutory price fixed. It was, therefore, submitted that the seizure of the trade articles as also the initiation of a confiscation proceeding was illegal and based on no justifiable ground or incriminating facts. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that on the relevant date the officer Incharge of the police station, was not present, and in his absence respondent No. 3 who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was discharging the duties of an officer-Incharge. He submits that under Rule 88-8 of the Police Manual, in the absence of the officer-in-charge, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police can also function as the Officer-Incharge. He, therefore. submits that respondent No.3 was authorised to seize the goods and to report the matter for taking appropriate action. The submission is misconceived and must be rejected. It is, no doubt, true that in the absence of the Officer Incharge, even an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police may perform the functions of the Officer Incharge, but that is not relevant in the context of the provisions of the Unification Order. Clause 30 of the Unification Order enumerates by designation the Officers who have been vested with the power of entry, search and seizure. Apart from many officers described by designation. clause 30 provides that any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or any other person empowered by the Government may exercise those powers. Clause 30 therefore, prohibits a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police to exercise the powers of entry, search and seizure. The provision being prohibitory must be deemed to be mandatory. Clause-30 goes not refer to an officer Incharge, but refers to a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. Obviously, therefore, even if an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police performs the functions of an officer-Incharge, by reason of such fact, he does not get empowered to exercise the powers of entry, search and seizure under clause-30 of the Unification order. The petitioners are, therefore. Obviously, therefore, even if an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police performs the functions of an officer-Incharge, by reason of such fact, he does not get empowered to exercise the powers of entry, search and seizure under clause-30 of the Unification order. The petitioners are, therefore. justified in submitting that respondent No.3, who was only an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, had no authority to carry out the search and seizure since he was not a person authorised for making search or seizure. Since such search and seizure was the foundation of the subsequent action taken for the confiscation of the goods, the action taken on the basis of the said illegal search and seizure must be quashed on this ground. There is also substance in the other submission urged on behalf of the petitioners. The quantity of trade articles which are shown to have been seized under Clause 2 are less than limits prescribed under the Control Order and, therefore, there was no need for the petitioners to take out a licence under the Order. Only in the case of sugar the quantity was more than the limit prescribed under the Unification Order. The ground on which the confiscation proceeding was initiated was that the trade articles were being taken for sale in the black market. There IS neither any evidence nor any material from which such an inference could be drawn by the seizing authority. From the mere fact that some trade articles are being carried, it could not be inferred, without anything else, that they were being carried for sale in the black market. 5. We may notice that the Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Commerce had informed this court on 10.2.1993 that the State Government had not empowered an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in this State to exercise any of the powers under Section 30 of the Unification Order. It was on that basis that by order dated 10.2.1993 the seized articles had been released by an order of this court. 6. in these circumstances. this writ petition is allowed and the seizure list Annexure-2 as also the proceeding initiated on the basis of the notice Annexure-3 are quashed.