JUDGMENT Subrata Talukdar, J. In this writ petition challenge been thrown to the institution of criminal proceedings on the basis of first information reports lodged by the police authorities against members of the writ petition no-1 in respect of which cases are pending before the learned Special Courts (Essential Commodities Act). At issue before this Court in the writ petition are the criminal cases being Jagatdal P.S. Case No. 150 dated 2nd May, 1991 and Barasat P.S. Case No. 355 dated 29th April, 1991 as also Kanksa P.S. Case No. 39/91. 2. A common argument has been advanced by the learned Senior Advocates, Sri Ashok Kumar Chakraborti, and Sri Saptangshu Basu. Learned Senior Counsel have argued that the individual petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are all members of the petitioner no.1 which is an association of brick-field owners. The said brick field owners are required to purchase coal for burning of bricks. 3. It is further pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that the coal which is purchased by the said brick field owners for the making of bricks does not attract the penal provisions of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Therefore, the use of such coal for the manufacture of bricks cannot be treated as an use under the Essential Commodities Act constituting violation also of the West Bengal, Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 (for short The 1977 Order). 4. Learned Senior Counsel point out that notwithstanding the above legal provision the police authorities in the three police stations as mentioned above in this order have started to harass the petitioners for using coal to manufacture the bricks. The police authorities are entering the brick fields of the writ petitioners and calling upon them to display their price list, stock board, books of accounts etc. Even first information reports have been lodged against the petitioners in respect of the three police station cases mentioned above in this order. 5. Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 477 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Janta In. Udyog & Ors.. Learned Senior Counsel argue that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold, inter alia, in a case involving similar facts that brick is not specified as an essential commodity. v. Janta In. Udyog & Ors.. Learned Senior Counsel argue that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold, inter alia, in a case involving similar facts that brick is not specified as an essential commodity. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the concerned State Government cannot impose a condition of licence on the manufacturer of bricks for the purpose of using coal for firing bricks. Learned Senior Counsel also point out that the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the prosecution of the writ petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the Coal Control Order unsustainable and accordingly quashed the first information reports. 6. Citing a parity of facts learned Senior Counsel submit that first information reports under challenge in the present writ petition emanate from a similar set of facts and circumstances since the basis of all the first information reports is the use of stocks of coal for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. The police authorities instituted the criminal proceedings on the premise that an essential commodity (coal) is being used for the purpose of production of a non-essential commodity (brick) and therefore such usage without complying with the provision of the 1977 Control Order constitutes a criminal offence. 7. Learned Senior Counsel submit that in the light of the law laid down in AIR 1991 SC 477 (supra), such criminal proceedings are clearly not sustainable. 8. This Court by order dated 15th June, 2015 was pleased to grant Sri Anit Rakhit, learned Counsel appearing for the State-respondents the opportunity to file affidavit-in-opposition. However, till date no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents. 9. Sri Rakhit appears in Court today pursuant to a notice served by learned Counsel for the petitioner no.5 and submits that the State-respondents are required to act in terms of the law. 10. Let copy of the notice filed in Court today be taken on record. 11. Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record, this Court is at first required to notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1991 SC 477 (supra). Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said judgment read as follows :- "(1) The only question that falls for decision in this case is whether the Government of U.P. is competent to insist that the Brick Manufacturers should take out licence for using coal for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said judgment read as follows :- "(1) The only question that falls for decision in this case is whether the Government of U.P. is competent to insist that the Brick Manufacturers should take out licence for using coal for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. The licence is insisted upon under U.P. Coal Control Order, 1977. When the manufacturers of the bricks did not take licences, they were sought to be prosecuted by the State authorities. They, therefore, moved the High Court challenging the action of the Government. The High Court held that the Coal Control Order "in so far as it relates to regulating the manufacture, distribution and fixation of price etc. in respect of bricks, cannot be upheld and deserves to be struck down to that extent." The High Court further held that the prosecution of the petitioners of the said Writ Petition who are respondents in these appeals proposed to be launched for contravention of the provisions of the Coal Control Order cannot be sustained and the first information reports lodged in that behalf deserve to be quashed. This judgment of the High Court is challenged before us. (2) Having heard counsel of both sides and perused the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Coal Control Order, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court cannot be interfered with. The State Government has power under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to make notified orders in respect of the essential commodities as referred to in Section 2 of the Act. But Section 2(a) (xi) of the Essential Commodities Act does not specify 'brick' as one of the essential commodities. Therefore, the High Court is justified in holding that the State Govt. cannot impose licence on the manufacturers of bricks for the purpose of using coal for firing bricks. All the appeals/SLPs/Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs." 12. This Court also notices the provisions of 1977 Control Order and finds that brick is not an essential commodity in terms of Schedule-1 of the 1977 Act. 13. cannot impose licence on the manufacturers of bricks for the purpose of using coal for firing bricks. All the appeals/SLPs/Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs." 12. This Court also notices the provisions of 1977 Control Order and finds that brick is not an essential commodity in terms of Schedule-1 of the 1977 Act. 13. In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the writ petitioners in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1991 SC 477 (supra) is in clear abuse of due process. In appropriate cases, this Court is not denuded of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene and quash first information reports, which are patently in abuse of due process. 14. C.O. 12670(W) of 1992 accordingly stands allowed. 15. The first information reports being Jagatdal P.S. Case No. 150 dated 2nd May, 1991 and Barasat P.S. Case No. 355 dated 29th April, 1991 as also Kanksa P.S. Case No. 39/91 and the criminal proceedings instituted thereto pending before the respective learned Special Courts stand quashed. 16. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.