JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition involves a request for quashing of a proceeding vide EMC No.24 of 2010, a proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act read with Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1993. 2. Short background involving the case is that on the night of 24/25.2.2010, the raiding party under the leadership of S.I, Aska when were on duty, the driver namely Naba Mohanty driving truck bearing Regd. No.OR-07-T-4077 belonging to the petitioner was coming from K.S Nagar side moving towards Aska, the raiding party detained the vehicle involved on the premises of transportation of kerosene oil unauthorisedly. The S.I., Aska after seizure of the truck took the truck with the driver to the police station, arrested the driver as a consequence of such search and seizure submitted an FIR vide Annexure-1. Seizure list was prepared vide Annexure-2. On the basis of F.I.R, a case was registered involving the petitioner and his driver under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of provision at Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and also the provisions of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order for initiation of proceeding under the provisions mentioned therein. 3. Challenging the initiation of such proceeding, filing the writ petition, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the involvement of a search and seizure by incompetent persons and the search and seizure remaining contrary to the provisions contained in Orissa Kerosene Control Order, the search and seizure both remain bad. Miss Mohapatra also contended that the proceeding initiated also becomes bad for the reason of a proceeding undertaken through repealing provision involving Kerosene Control Order which has been repealed on introduction of Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. While seeking quashing of the proceeding vide EMC No.24 of 2010. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to satisfy this Court on the merit involving the matter. In support of her such contention Miss Mohapatra also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Collector and District Magistrate Balasore and others, 2010 (1) OrissaLR 201 in W.P.(C ) No.12796 of 2009 disposed of on 24.12.2009. 4. In his opposition, Shri S.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. In support of her such contention Miss Mohapatra also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Collector and District Magistrate Balasore and others, 2010 (1) OrissaLR 201 in W.P.(C ) No.12796 of 2009 disposed of on 24.12.2009. 4. In his opposition, Shri S.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while opposing the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to merit involving the case, referring to the Kerosene Control Order 1993 particularly the notification dated 7.7.1994 contended that for the prescription therein, at the minimum, search and seizure should have been undertaken by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector. He, therefore, not disputed the contentions being raised by Miss. Mohapatra that the search and seizure become bad for the undertaking of such exercise by Sub-Inspector. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and the pleading as well as the documents available herein, more particularly, the FIR vide Annexure-1, this Court finds the F.I.R involving the initiation of the Essential Commodities proceeding while the FIR though filed by Sub-Inspector, Aska P.S but there also remains no dispute that search and seizure are made by the S.I., Aska. It is at this stage, looking to the prescription made in Notification dated 7.7.1994, being repealed and further revived through the Orissa P.D.S Control Order, 2008, this Court finds the notification prescribes action under Orissa P.D.S Control Order, 2008 should be undertaken by a Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector. The F.I.R at Annexure-1 and the seizure list at Annexure-2 since made by a Sub-Inspector, this Court finds Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in making a claim that both the Search and Seizure are made by person unauthorized to do so. 6. In the circumstance, this Court finds since the Essential Commodity proceeding vide EMC No.24 of 2010 is based on a search and seizure by an incompetent person, the proceeding vide EMC No.24 of 2010 stands vitiated. 7. It is here taking into consideration the decision of this Court vide 2010 (1) OLR 201 going through the judgment indicated herein this Court finds the point involved here is also a point of consideration in the cited decision and the decision taken therein has direct application to the case at hand. 8. 7. It is here taking into consideration the decision of this Court vide 2010 (1) OLR 201 going through the judgment indicated herein this Court finds the point involved here is also a point of consideration in the cited decision and the decision taken therein has direct application to the case at hand. 8. In the result, this Court while declaring the process involving search and seizure becomes bad as a consequence declares Notice involving EMC No. 24 of 2010 becomes bad and accordingly declares the same invalid. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. No cost.