JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The two petitioners have come under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 23.08.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Bihar P.S. Case No. 23/2003 for offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to E.C. Act). 3. Undisputedly on confidential information on black marketing of kerosene oil, a raid was conducted under the leadership of Block Supply Officer and one Karu Sao was apprehended with 20 litres of kerosene oil. On query, he disclosed names of four P.D.S. Dealers from whom he used to purchase the commodity at higher price and sale accordingly. 4. The two petitioners are the P.D.S. Dealers whose names were disclosed by said Karu Sao besides names of Maheshwar Prasad and Jahangir Mian, the two other P.D.S. Dealers. 5. My attention was drawn towards composite order of this Court dated 21.08.2006 in three criminal cases respectively numbers as Cr. Misc. No. 05063/2005, Cr. Misc. No. 28259/2004 and Cr. Misc. No. 05312/2005 having common questions of law and the first case bearing Cr. Misc. No. 05063/2005 filed by Maheshwar Prasad and Jahangir Mian and the proceeding with respect to them have been quashed after full fledged hearing and on behalf of the government, one Notification published in Extra Ordinary Gazette on 25.05.2006 authorizing the authorities to exercise jurisdiction under Clauses 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Public Distribution system (Control) Order, 2001, and it has been held "This indicates that on the date of occurrence there was no authorization for making search and seizure as well as institution of the First Information Report. The earlier Unification Order had already been amended as provided under Clause 14 and no notification was published as provided under Clause 10. The notification has been published on 25.05.2006. In between 31.08.2001 to 25.05.2006 there was no authorization in favour of any of the authority for search, seizure and institution of the case. This has been held in a decision reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 330 Sri Narain Prasad @ Sri Narain sao and five Ors. v. The State of Bihar) no action can be taken on the basis of an illegal search and seizure and any proceeding initiated on its basis must be quashed." 6. This has been held in a decision reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 330 Sri Narain Prasad @ Sri Narain sao and five Ors. v. The State of Bihar) no action can be taken on the basis of an illegal search and seizure and any proceeding initiated on its basis must be quashed." 6. In the instant case, also the search and seizure was made on 27.01.2003 and in case of two of the P.D.S. Dealers have already been quashed. 7. Therefore, I find no reason to differ with the findings arrived at by another Bench of this Court aforementioned, accordingly, the impugned order and proceeding to the extent of these petitioners are also quashed. Petition stands allowed.