Judgment : TAPEN SEN, J. In this case, the Petitioners have prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to withdraw and cancel the Complaint on the basis whereof Bankura P.S. case No. 200 of 2006 dated 31.8.2006 under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. was initiated against the Petitioner Nos. 1,3 5 and 7 as well as against their office bearers. The Petitioners have further prayed for an Order restraining the Respondents from proceeding with the aforesaid Bankura Police Station case No. 200 of 2006 against the Petitioners and their office bearers. The Petitioners have also prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondent No. 5 (Inspector), Enforcement Branch, Bhabani Bhavan, Alipore) to release the seized articles and/or documents which were so seized vide Seizure List dated 30.8.2006. The Petitioners have also prayed for consequential reliefs including stay of the operation of the FIR being Bankura Police Station case No. 200 of 2006 = G.R. case No. 570 of 2006 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura on the ground that the F.I.R. is wholly without any authority as the Police authorities lacked the jurisdiction to conduct the search and the seizure. 2. The Petitioner Nos. 1,3, 5 and 7 are cooperative Societies registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 having their respective registered offices as mentioned in the cause title of the Writ Petition. The Petitioner Nos. 2,4 and 8 are the Secretaries of the Petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 7. The Petitioner No. 6 is the Manager of the Petitioner No. 5. The Petitioner Nos. 2,4,6 and 8 carry on their business through the Petitioner Nos. 1,3,5 and 7 respectively. 3. The Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7 are affiliated to The West Bengal State Consumers’ Cooperative Federation Limited (CONFED for short)-Respondent No. 8. CONFED is a State Cooperative Union. 4. The case of the Petitioners is that due to lack of marketing facilities, the farmers of West Bengal were forced to sell paddy in the open market at prices which were much below the minimum support price. The State of West Bengal, though being considered to be the “rice bowl” of India and despite production of huge quantity, was facing shortage of rice which was required for its distribution under the Public Distribution System and also under various social welfare measures such as mid-day meal Schemes. The State of West Bengal, though being considered to be the “rice bowl” of India and despite production of huge quantity, was facing shortage of rice which was required for its distribution under the Public Distribution System and also under various social welfare measures such as mid-day meal Schemes. In order to meet the demand, the State had to import rice from other States through the Food Corporation of India (FCI for short). In order to meet the requirement of the Public Distribution Systems including mid-day meal Schemes, the State of West Bengal fixed a target of 17 lakh tons of rice and requested the FCI to procure 3 lakh tons of paddy/custom milled rice and accordingly, the FCI was directed by the Central Government to continue with the Memorandum of Understandings with two State Agencies namely CONFED and BENFED. Subsequently, the quantity of custom milled rice to be procured was enhanced from 3 lakh tons to 7.5 lakh tons. 5. The FCI signed a Memorandum of Understanding with CONFED on 17.11.2005 for procurement of paddy and delivery of custom milled rice to the extent of 1.40 lakh metric tons or more for the Kharif marketing seasons of 2005-06. Under the said Memorandum, CONFED was to procure fine average quality paddy from the farmers at the minimum support price and was to convert the same into custom milled rice with authorisation to enter into agreements with bona fide millers or cooperatives and deliver the same to the FCI. The FCI, in its turn, was to make payment to CONFED within 3 days from the date of issuance of the stock by the FCI at the rate decided by the Central Government. Subsequently, the FCI enhanced the quantity of custom milled rice to be supplied by CONFED to 2 lakh metric tons by a Memo dated 25.3.2006. 6. It is the further case of the Petitioners that on or about 12.12.2005, CONFED entered into a separate Memorandum of Understanding with the Petitioner Nos. 1,3, 5 & 7 for procurement of paddy and delivery of custom milled rice to the FCI. The Petitioners procured paddy from the cultivators from their own resources and after milling the paddy, delivered the rice to the FCI godowns in the account of CONFED. 1,3, 5 & 7 for procurement of paddy and delivery of custom milled rice to the FCI. The Petitioners procured paddy from the cultivators from their own resources and after milling the paddy, delivered the rice to the FCI godowns in the account of CONFED. After delivery of the rice, the Petitioners were paid the price of rice on submission of enforcement certificates issued by the local Panchayat bodies certifying that the minimum support price had been paid by the Petitioners to the cultivators for procuring the paddy. 7. It is the further case of the Petitioners that to facilitate the storage of the paddy and/or the milled rice, they had taken the godown of one Sri Laxmi Mills situated at Kethardanga, P.S. Bankura on rent/hire. They delivered the agreed amount of rice to the FCI in the account of CONFED. The Petitioners have also stated that they have come to learn that CONFED, in its turn, has delivered the agreed amount of 2 lakh metric tons of milled rice to the FCI. 8. It is the further case of the Petitioners that on 30.8.2006, some persons claiming themselves to be Officers of the Enforcement Branch of the Police, came to the godown of the Petitioners and began to inspect and search the same. They also refused to show any authorisation from any competent authority in respect of the said inspection. The Petitioners have stated that these persons continued the search from 1525 hours to 2315 hours on 30.8.2006. They seized documents and articles including keys and the computerised weighing machine. They seized about 3068 quintals of rice and on the same day, prepared a Seizure List (Annexure-P/5). They also arrested the godown keeper namely Rajib Mallick on 31.8.2006 and then lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-charge, Bankura Police Station alleging that there was a shortfall of 915 quintals of rice during verification of the stock. The Petitioners have stated that the Officer-in-charge, acting on the dictates of the Officers of the Enforcement Branch of the Police, lodged an FIR being Bankura P.S. Case no. 200 of 2006 under Sections 406/409/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR is Annexure-P/7. 9. The Petitioners have stated that they filed a Representation on 4.9.2006 before the Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply, Govt. 200 of 2006 under Sections 406/409/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR is Annexure-P/7. 9. The Petitioners have stated that they filed a Representation on 4.9.2006 before the Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply, Govt. of West Bengal but he expressed his inability to take steps in the matter as the Enforcement Branch was acting suo motu and without any permission from the State Government. According to the Petitioners however, the Sole authority for monitoring procurement, distribution and supply of essential commodities including rice and paddy lies with the respective officers of the Food & Supplies Department and no other agency has any authority. The Enforcement Branch is a part of the Police Organisation and therefore it has no jurisdiction to monitor such procurement, distribution and supply through the Public Distribution System except to the extent of assisting statutory authorities empowered to do so. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the said Enforcement Branch being an enforcing agency of the Food & Supplies Department, has no jurisdiction or authority to cause search or seizure or to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of distribution, procurement or supply of essential articles including paddy and rice. They do not have any authority to carry out any suo motu investigation or to carry out search & seizure at the instance of any agency save and except the Food & Supplies Department. Consequently, and according to the Petitioners, their action is therefore arbitrary and non-est in the eye of law. Based on the aforementioned facts and grievances, the Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 10. Two (2) Supplementary Affidavits have been filed by the Petitioners being Supplementary Affidavits dated 15.9.2006 and 3.7.2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 1st SA and 2nd SA respectively). In the 1st SA, duly sworn by the Petitioner No. 8, it has been stated that the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing on 11.9.2006 analogously with W.P. No. 1239 of 2006 when a submission was made on behalf of the State Respondents that the entire action was based on the West Bengal Rice Mills (Control and Levy) Order, 2005 which was published by the Food & Supplies Department, Govt. of West Bengal by Notification No. 6690-FS dated 16.11.2005. The matter was adjourned to 15.9.2006. of West Bengal by Notification No. 6690-FS dated 16.11.2005. The matter was adjourned to 15.9.2006. It has further been stated that however on 11.9.2006, the Petitioners made an enquiry at the sales counter of the West Bengal Government at 2 and 3 Kiran Shankar Roy Road, Kolkata with regard to the Gazette publication of the said Notification dated 16.11.2005 and they came to learn that no such publication was available with them. It has further been stated that on 13.9.2006, the Petitioner No. 8, Deponent, was however informed by the Advocate-on-record that a copy of the Gazette Notification (Annexure-P/8 to the 1st SA) had been received from the counter of the State Government on 12.9.2006 since it was delivered by the Superintendent of the Bengal Government Press personally in the afternoon of 11.9.2006 at the counter for sale. In the 2nd SA, duly sworn by the Petitioner No. 6, it has been stated that an information was sought for under the Right to Information Act with regard to the date of publication of the said Gazette Notification. The information received from the Controller of Printing and Stationary, Govt. of West Bengal (Annexure-P/10 of the 2nd SA) was that the publication was received on 8.9.2006 and it was sent to the sales counter on 11.9.2006. The Petitioners have submitted in Para-8 of the 2nd SA that it is therefore clear that the said Control Order, 2005 as published on 19.11.2005 was not even in existence on 31.8.2006 when the godown was searched by the Enforcement Branch of the Police as it was received for publication only on 8.9.2006 and sent to the sales counter on 11.9.2006. Therefore, according to them, the Enforcement Branch of the Police had no authority. 11. An Affidavit has been filed being the Affidavit dated 17.4.2008 and which has been duly sworn by One Pradeep Kumar Sahai, Additional Director General and Inspector General of Police, Enforcement Branch (Respondent No. 4). He has stated that the Writ Petition is not maintainable jointly by all the Petitioners inasmuch they are different Societies having independent status. He has further, inter alia, stated as follows:- “(e) The West Bengal Rice Mills (Control and Levy) Order, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Control Order) was duly notified, published in Gazette and made available in Government sale Counters for the use and knowledge of concerned people. He has further, inter alia, stated as follows:- “(e) The West Bengal Rice Mills (Control and Levy) Order, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Control Order) was duly notified, published in Gazette and made available in Government sale Counters for the use and knowledge of concerned people. (f) In order to check non compliance of the control order by motivated people, police, among others, has also been given power to enter, inspect, search and seize documents as well as paddy/rice from the Rice Mills Vide Para 12 of the said control Order. (g) The power thus given to the police is not subject to authorisation from Food & Supply Department of the Government of West Bengal as in the case of Inspectors of the Food Department. (h) The Central Enforcement Branch of Police has conducted inspections, search, and seizure on the basis of some secret information received about alleged malpractices in pronouncement of paddy and rice whereby the poor farmers are being deprived and/or denied the minimum support price of Rs 570/- per quintal as fixed by the Central Government. (j) Paragraph 12 of West Bengal Rice Mills (control and Law) Order 2005 published in the Kolkata Gazette dated Saturday, November 19, 2005 vide Notification no. 6690 FS/FS/Scett/Food/4R- 01/2005- 16th November 2005, empowers any Police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspectors to enter inspect, search seize in the rice mill with a view to securing compliances with this Control order. (k) Before search was conducted on 30.08.2006 and 31.08.2006 notice under para 12(i) (b) of the said Control Order stating the clear reasons for inspection, search of Rice Mill was served upon the writ petitioners. The said notice was deposited along with the charge sheet and Case Diary with the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura. However, it may be further stated that during the course of investigation, it transpired that there were also discrepancies and/or irregularities found in respect of paddy purchase Memos of the writ Petitioners Societies. (Quoted) This Deponent has referred to the alleged violation committed by the Petitioners by mentioning, inter alia, as follows:- “(i) Writ Petitioners did not have total Paddy Memo for the entire stock of paddy purchased by them from the farmers at MSP (Minimum Support Price) i.e. Rs. 570/- Per Qtls. Paddy. (Quoted) This Deponent has referred to the alleged violation committed by the Petitioners by mentioning, inter alia, as follows:- “(i) Writ Petitioners did not have total Paddy Memo for the entire stock of paddy purchased by them from the farmers at MSP (Minimum Support Price) i.e. Rs. 570/- Per Qtls. Paddy. It may be mentioned here that after issuance of notice under para 12(1) (b) of the said Control Order, 2005 to godown keeper Rajib Mallick, Sri Gurupada Mondal, Manager inspection search and seizure was conducted in Kethardanga Shree Laxmi Mills Rice godown hired by Kelebala S.K.U.S. Upon verification of the stock of rice it was found that 1830 Gunny bags full of boiled rice having weight 50 Kgs each bag short in account in comparison with the stock register, where it was shown to be 8000 bags. In presence of witnesses weighment chart was prepared after weighing each bag. The total net weight of shortage rice was to the tune of 915 quintals which costs Rs 9,15,000/-, 6170 bags (each bag being of 50 Kgs), One computer, weighing machine amongst others were seized and a Criminal case being Bankura P.S. Case No. 200 dated 31.08.06 under section 406/409/420/120B I.P.C. was started. Subsequently prayer was made for adding section 7(i) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Such prayer being allowed, confiscation proceedings under section 6A of the said Act X of 1955 has also been stared, and the same is pending before the Collector E.C. Court. This fact has been noted in FIR and corroborated by seizure list and written notice served upon the writ petitioners during Inspection by Inspector Enforcement Branch, on 30.08.2006 and 31.08.2006. (l) In the aforesaid background it is submitted that the criminal proceedings has been initiated for violation of the provisions of West Bengal Rice Mill (Control and levy) Order, 2005. The writ petitioners can not challenge the subject matter of the said Criminal proceedings by taking recourse to this instant public Law remedy.” (Quoted) This Deponent has attempted to justify the search & seizure and has stated that under Para-12 of the aforesaid West Bengal Rice Mills (Control and Levy) Order 2005, the Police in the Enforcement Branch has full authority and is empowered to enforce the said Order and while doing so, they can take such steps as may be necessary. Para-12 of the said Control and Levy Order reads as follows:- “12. Para-12 of the said Control and Levy Order reads as follows:- “12. Power of entry, search, seizure etc.: (1) The Collector or the Director of such officer of the Department of Food & Supplies not below the rank of Inspector as may be authorised by the Collector or the Director, or any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector may with a view to securing compliance with this Order or to satisfy himself that this order has been complied with: (a) Inspect or cause to be inspected any book or documents or accounts as well as any stock of rice or paddy belonging to or under the control of a miller; (b) Require any person to give any information in his possession with respect to any undertaking or business for production or manufacture of rice or for purchase, sale or storage for sale of rice or paddy; (c) Stop and search forthwith, with such aid or assistance as may be necessary, any person or vehicle or vessel or animal used or suspected of being used for delivery of rice or paddy from a rice mill or other premises where he has reason to believe, rice or paddy is stored; (d) Enter and search, with such aid or assistance as may be necessary, any rice mill or traders godown or other premises; (e) Seize and remove, with such aid or assistance as may be necessary; (i) any stock of rice or paddy in respect of which/of a part of which, he has reason to believe, a contravention of any of the provisions of this order has been, is being, or is about to be committed; (ii) any package, covering or receiptacle in which such stock of rice or paddy is found, and (iii) the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such stock of rice or paddy if he has reason to believe that such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance is liable to be forfeited under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and thereafter take or authorised to take all measures necessary under the provisions of section 6a of the said Act for securing the production of the package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance so seized, before the collector of the district or the Presidency town or Judicial authority appointed by the Government under section 6C of the said Act, and for their safe custody pending such production. (f) Seize and remove any book of accounts or document which, in his opinion, shall be useful for, relevant to, any proceeding in respect of any contravention of this order and allow the person from whose custody such books of accounts or documents is seized to make copies thereof or to take extracts therefrom in his presence and lodge complaint with the police as per existing law. (g) Any contravention of any provision(s) of the part of a rice miller shall be dealt with the provisions made in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (2) the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1973) relating to search and seizure, shall, so far as may apply to searches or seizure under this paragraph.” (Quoted) 12. A Supplementary Affidavit dated 27.7.2011, duly sworn by one Vijoy Kumar, Addl. Director General and Inspector General of Police, Enforcement Branch has also been filed and in that Affidavit, he has brought on record the letters dated 6.7.2011 (Page 16) issued by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal addressed to the Special Inspector General and Deputy Inspector of Police, Enforcement Branch informing him that as per records available, it appears that the Gazette Notification dated 16.11.2005 was sent to the Govt. Press on 18.11.2005 for publication in the Gazette and the said Notification was received by the Press on 18.11.2005 as per the Department’s Office Peon Book record dated 18.11.2005. He has also brought on record a letter dated 18.7.2011 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Food & Supplies informing the Special Superintendent of Police, Enforcement Branch that the Departmental Notification dated 16.11.2005 had not been published in the Website as, at that time, there were no such facilities in that Department and therefore it was published in accordance with the prevalent procedure. He has also brought on record a letter dated 19.7.2011 issued by the Special Superintendent of Police, Enforcement Branch addressed to the Superintendent, Bengal Govt. Press asking him to inform him as to on what date the Notification dated 16.11.2005 was published ? In reply, the Superintendent Government Printing Press stated that the said Notification dated 16.11.2005 was published in the Gazette on 19.11.2005. 13. Press asking him to inform him as to on what date the Notification dated 16.11.2005 was published ? In reply, the Superintendent Government Printing Press stated that the said Notification dated 16.11.2005 was published in the Gazette on 19.11.2005. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Annexure-P/10 brought on record in the 2nd SA shows that the Controller of Printing & Stationary had certified that the Notification was received on 8.9.2006 and it was sent to the Sales Counter only on 11.9.2006 and this was a sufficient evidence to establish that the Notification itself cannot be deemed to be in existence at the time when the search & seizure was made on 30.8.2006. He submitted, with reference to Para-12 of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Controller of Central Excise vs. New Tobacco Co. & Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 250 that if publication is through a Gazette, then mere printing would not be enough unless the same containing the Notification is made available to the public and unless it is made available, the Notification cannot be said to be duly published. He submits that since the Notification was sent to the Sales Counter on 11.9.2006, knowledge and availability to the public with regard to this Notification can only begin on and from 11.9.2006 and NOT prior thereto even if the Notification was published earlier. 14. He then submitted, with reference to Para-4 of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Garware Nylons Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Pune etc. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 282 that a Notification can be said to have been duly published when it is made known to the public. In that case also, a Notification was put up for public sale only on 1.11.1985 and therefore the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the effective date of the Notification would be 1.11.1985. Drawing a parallel example, learned Counsel submitted that the effective date of the Notification dated 16.11.2005 can only be deemed to be on and from 11.9.2006 and not before that. 15. However, both the aforesaid Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of New Tobacco Co. & Ors. Drawing a parallel example, learned Counsel submitted that the effective date of the Notification dated 16.11.2005 can only be deemed to be on and from 11.9.2006 and not before that. 15. However, both the aforesaid Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of New Tobacco Co. & Ors. and Garware Nylons Ltd. referred to above have been held to be not good laws in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Ganesh Das Bhojraj reported in (2000) 9 SCC 461 . The Judgment passed in Ganesh Das Bhojraj’s case, while holding in Para-17, that the decision rendered in the case of New Tobacco Co. which had followed Garware Nylons Ltd. does not lay down the correct law, their Lordships upheld the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 5 SCC 198 . In that judgment, it was held that the mode of publication being prescribed, a Notification will come into effect from the date of its publication in the official Gazette and it was not necessary that the Notification be made known or broadcast in similar recognisable way to make it enforceable. Para-17 of Ganesh Das Bhojraj’s case reads as follows:- “17. From the aforesaid observations, it is plain and clear that the decision in B.K. Srinivasan also reiterates that the notification will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette. We also agree with the reasons recorded in Mayer Hans George and hold that notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act would come into operation as soon as it is published in the Official Gazette and no further publication is required. Hence, the decision rendered in Pankaj Jain Agencies represents the correct exposition of law on the subject. The decision rendered in New Tobacco Co. followed in Garware Nylons Ltd. does not lay down the correct law.” (Quoted but bold fonts and underlining is by this Court) 16. A similar submission was made in Pankaj Jain case (supra) that mere publication is not enough and that until the Notification was made available at Bombay and shown to be so available, the said Notification would not become operative. This contention was not accepted by the Supreme Court in Para-18 of the judgment. A similar submission was made in Pankaj Jain case (supra) that mere publication is not enough and that until the Notification was made available at Bombay and shown to be so available, the said Notification would not become operative. This contention was not accepted by the Supreme Court in Para-18 of the judgment. Paras 11, 12 and 18 of the Judgment passed in Pankaj Jain’s case are quoted below:- “11. But, Shri Ganesh urged that it was not sufficient that a law, regulation, statutory instrument or subordinate legislation is promulgated; and that for their coming into operation it is necessary that they are made known or broadcast in some recognisable way, so that all men may know what it is. But the law recognises the distinction between an Act of the Legislature which come into force on the date it receives the assent of the President or the Governor and subordinate legislation which require publication in some recognised way. 12. It is, however, urged, that is, until the notification was available in Bombay- and shown to be so available – the statutory rule or instrument would not become operative. 18. We, therefore, see no substance in the contention that notwithstanding the publication in the Official Gazette there was yet a failure to make the law known and that, therefore, the notification did not acquire the elements of operativeness and enforceability. This contention of Shri Ganesh is unacceptable.” (Quoted) 17. In the instant case, the Notification which has been brought on record in the 2nd SA, being the Notification dated 19.11.2005, states that it shall come into force “at once”. It also says that the Notification would mean a Notification published in the Official Gazette. This can be found from reading Section 1(3) and Section 2(g) of the said Notification dated 19.11.2005. 18. In view of the aforementioned Judgment passed in Ganesh Das Bhojraj case, the reliance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Garware Nylons’ and New Tobacco’s cases cannot be accepted. This can be found from reading Section 1(3) and Section 2(g) of the said Notification dated 19.11.2005. 18. In view of the aforementioned Judgment passed in Ganesh Das Bhojraj case, the reliance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Garware Nylons’ and New Tobacco’s cases cannot be accepted. Under such circumstances, this Court has no option but to hold, on the basis of the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4 that the date of coming into force of the Notification dated 16.11.2005 would be the date on which it was published being 19.11.2005 as certified by the Superintendent, Government Printing Press vide his letter dated 20.7.2011 which was in answer to the query of the special Superintendent of Police made on 19.7.2011 asking him for an information as to when was the said Notification published. It was in answer to that that the Superintendent replied on 20.7.2011 saying that the said Notification was published on 19.11.2005. This tallies even with the documents brought on record by the Petitioners themselves in the 2nd SA at Page 12 (Annexure-P/10). It refers to the Notification number and date of publication as Ex-258 G-Food-dated 19.11.2005. Thus, this tallies with what the Superintendent, Government Printing Press has stated. The contention that it was made available or sent to the Sales Counter or 11.9.2006 cannot be of any assistance to the Petitioners in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Ganesh Das Bhojraj which approved the case of M/s. Pankaj Jain stated above. For the foregoing reasons, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly Dismissed. There shall however, be no Order as to Costs.