MANJULA CHELLUR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned h. C. G. R for the respondent - State. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS -1,2, and 4 are inter-se related to each other. So far as petitioner No. 3 is an acquaintance of other petitioners. Petitioners No. 5 is also a close relative of the petitioner - 4. ( 3 ) THE allegation is that according to the prosecution on 23. 6. 2003, the Inspector of police of Uppinangadi Police Station raided the house of Krishnappa Poojari and seized one jeep bearing no, KA 21 M 5966, another scooter bearing No. KA 21 E 8679, motorbike bearing No. CNX 1314 and another motorbike bearing no. KA 21h 489 which were parked in front of the house. Along with these vehicles it is alleged the seized petrol, diesel, kerosene and field F. I. R. at Uppinangady Police Station] under Clause 5 of motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in supply and Distribution) Order, 1990 and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The offence can be punishable only under Essential Commodities Act for contravening the said order. ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that subsequent' to 1990 order Motor spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution (Prevention of Malpratice) Order, 1998 has come into play. Order 4 details who is the authorised Officer to conduct search and seizure of Essential Commodities mentioned under the above Licence Order which reads as under:" 4. Order 4 details who is the authorised Officer to conduct search and seizure of Essential Commodities mentioned under the above Licence Order which reads as under:" 4. Power of Search and Seizure - (A) Any Gazetted Officer of the Central or State Government or any Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy superintendent of Police (DSP) duly authorised, by general or special order by the Central Government or State Government as the case may be or any Officer of the concerned Oil Company not below the rank of Sales Officer may, with a view to securing compliance with the provisions of this order, or for the purpose of satisfying himself that this Order or any order made thereunder has been complied with (i) enter and search any place or premises being made use of or suspected to be made use of by a dealer, transporter, consumer or any other person who is an employee or agent of such dealer/transporter/ consumer or any other person, with respect to which there is reason to believe that the provisions of this order have been / are being or are about to be contravened. (ii) Stop and search any person or vehicle or receptacle used or intended to be used for the movement of the product. (iii) Inspect any book of accounts or other documents or any stock of the product used or suspected to bo used in the business of the dealer, transporter, consumer or any other person suspected to be an employee or agent of the dealer, transporter or consumer. (iv) Take sample of the product and/ or seize any of the stocks of the product which the Officer has reason to believe has been or is being or is about to be used in contravention of this order and hereafter take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of stock/ items so seized before the Collector having jurisdiction under the provision of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) and for their safe custody pending such production. " ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel also relies on ROY V. D. vs STATE OF KERALA. This pertains to NDPS Act where the quashment of charge was sought on the allegation that search and seizure was made by Excise Inspector, not authorized under Sections 41 and 42 of NDPS Act. " ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel also relies on ROY V. D. vs STATE OF KERALA. This pertains to NDPS Act where the quashment of charge was sought on the allegation that search and seizure was made by Excise Inspector, not authorized under Sections 41 and 42 of NDPS Act. The reading of the Order 4 of 1998 Malpractice order would make it clear that the Police Inspector was not an authorized Officer. In other words, no Officer of the Police department below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was authorised to raid, search and seize for contravention of any of the licence order. ( 6 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader has not brought to the notice of the Court that subsequent to the 1998 Order whether there is any other order authorizing the Inspector of Police to conduct such search and seizure. ( 7 ) UNDER these circumstances, the proceeding in question deserves to be quashed. The vehicles which are seized have to be immediately released to the custody of the persons from where they were seized. --- *** --- .