JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Confiscation Case/Misc. Case No.01/2017-18 which was initiated vide order 03.06.2017. Further prayer is made for release of the Pick-up van bearing registration no.BR26E4072 which was seized along with rice in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No.78/2016. 4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of Pick-up van bearing registration no.BR26E4072 having all the required permit, insurance and up-to-date documents. He further submits that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle in question after obtaining loan. He submits that the vehicle in question was hired by one P.D.S. owner for transportation. This petitioner was engaged in transportation of goods by one Dinesh Gupta @ Tinku Gupta. However, during that period itself, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No.78/2016 for the offence under sections 409, 420, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has got no connection with the seized article namely, rice. According to him, there is no allegation of violation of any specific Control Order and no case under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that no confiscation proceeding under section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act has been initiated against the petitioner. According to him, even not a notice for confiscation has been initiated against the petitioner and the vehicle in question which is commercial is lying in open since October, 2016. 5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State justified the impugned action on behalf of the State and submits that notice has been issued which is contained at page 42 of the writ petition and the petitioner has also responded to that notice. Mr. 5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State justified the impugned action on behalf of the State and submits that notice has been issued which is contained at page 42 of the writ petition and the petitioner has also responded to that notice. Mr. Sinha, the learned State counsel by way of referring counter affidavit submits that petitioner has violated the P.D.S system and the vehicle was also being used in illegal business of transporting PDS grain etc. 6. In the light of the above facts, the Court has perused the notice contained at page 42 of the writ petition whereby it transpires that there is no notice with regard to the vehicle in question. This notice is for confiscation of the rice in question which was seized along with the vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the Essential Commodities Act in the case of “Kailash Prasad Yadav and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another”, (2007) 5 SCC 769 whereby it has been held that 2001 Order does not deal with the matter dealing in wheat or transportation thereof. There is no provision for search of the vehicle. For the sake of brevity, paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow : “6. The 2001 Order does not deal with a matter dealing in wheat or transportation thereof. “Fair price shop” has been defined in clause 2(k) of the 2001 Order to mean “a shop, which has been licensed to distribute essential commodities by an order issued under Section 3 of the Act to the ration card holders under the Public Distribution System”. Clause 3 provides for identification of families living below the poverty line. Clause 4 provides for issuance of ration cards. Clause 5 deals with scale of issue and issue price. Clause 6 provides for the procedure for distribution of food-grains by Food Corporation of India to the State Government or their nominated agencies. Sub-clause (2) of clause 6 obligates the fair price shop-owners to take delivery of stocks from authorised nominees of the State Governments to ensure that essential commodities are available at the fair price shop within first week of the month for which the allotment is made. Sub-clause (2) of clause 6 obligates the fair price shop-owners to take delivery of stocks from authorised nominees of the State Governments to ensure that essential commodities are available at the fair price shop within first week of the month for which the allotment is made. Sub-clause (4) thereof obligates the authority or person who is engaged in the distribution and handling of essential commodities under the public distribution system not to wilfully indulge in substitution or adulteration or diversion or theft of stocks from central godowns to fair price shop premises or at the premises of the fair price shop. Explanation appended thereto defines “diversion” to mean “unauthorised movement or delivery of essential commodities released from central godowns but not reaching the intended beneficiaries under the Public Distribution System”. Clause 9 provides for penalty. There is no provision for search of a vehicle. The power of search is confined to fair price shop or any premises relevant to transaction of business of the fair price shop. The power of such authorities causing a search is confined to sub-clause (3) of clause 10 of the 2001 Order to search, seize or remove such books of accounts or stocks of essential commodities where such authority has reason to believe that these have been used or will be used in contravention of the provisions of the Order. 7. A valid seizure, as is well known, is a sine qua non for passing an order of confiscation of property.” 7. Considering the judgment rendered in the case of “Kailash Prasad Yadav” (supra), this Court has further exercised its powers in the case of “Anil Kumar Sahu @ Anil Sahu & Another v. The State of Jharkhand And Others”, 2008 (4) JLJR 390 and in case of “Mahesh Sao v. The State of Jharkhand and Another”, 2010 (1) JLJR 222 . In view of the above, the vehicle in question is lying in open since 2016 and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Kailash Prasad Yadav” (supra), under the circumstances, the Court finds that it needs intervention by this Court and accordingly, the Pick-up van bearing registration no.BR26E4072 is directed to be released from the concerned court in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No.78/2016 on executing indemnity bond separately by the petitioner of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand) for corresponding Pick up Van with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned ACJM, Palamau at Daltonganj on the terms that the same will not be alienated in any manner without prior permission of the Court till the disposal of the case. 8. W.P.(Cr.) No.422 of 2017 stands disposed of. 9. I.A. if any stands disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.