ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR No.73/2024 dated 13.04.2024 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, District Jodhpur City West for alleged offences under Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. According to the FIR, on 13.04.2024, the police received information via email and pursuant thereto Chief Sub Inspector recorded same in Roznamcha stating that during evening patrolling at Mogada, they erected a vehicle barricade. They stopped a Bolero Camper with registration number RJ-19-GG-7201 coming from Jodhpur side around 8:30 PM. The driver, identified himself as Pramod. He was in possession of vehicle documents and his driving license. Upon searching the vehicle, two large blue plastic bottles filled with 200-200 liters of inflammable substance resembling petrol were found in the vehicle. When questioned about the petrol and transportation, Pramod stated that his father Bansilal had bought it and had left it in the Balero camper with him. 2.1 Subsequently, Bansilal (petitioner) arrived at the scene and claimed ownership of the Bolero Camper, acknowledging the presence of the plastic bottles containing petrol-like substance in the vehicle's rear compartment. The police official seized the articles, and subsequently filed the FIR. Hence, the misc. petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, relies on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1361/2014 & Ors.; Karamjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 02.02.2016.The relevant of which is extracted below : “These orders as well as the State Government's Control Order of 1990 have all been issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. They submit that the Central Government's Control Orders would have an over-riding effect on a Control order issued by the State Government as they all cover the same subject. They rely on the notification dated 10.04.2006 issued by the State Government under the Control Order, 2005 whereby, officers not below the rank of Additional DSO have been authorised to take action under the said Control Order. They further contend that under the Control Order of 1999, retail sale of petroleum products upto 2500 ltrs. is permissible to one person at a time.” 5. They further contend that under the Control Order of 1999, retail sale of petroleum products upto 2500 ltrs. is permissible to one person at a time.” 5. Conceded case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was nabbed with 400 litres of petrol and therefore, is liable to be tried under Section 3 read with 7 of the Essential commodities Act. However, on the reading of the aforesaid judgment, it’s ratio suggests otherwise. Not only that, the competent authority has also issued the notification dated 10.04.2006, as noted in the judgment supra, permitting 2500 litres of petrol to be transported by an individual. 6. On a court query, the learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the above mentioned notification or the ratio rendered in the judgment ibid. The aforesaid judgment has attained finality since it was not challenged. 7. In the premise, the petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed with consequences to follow. 8. In view of the quashing of the FIR, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the release of the vehicle in his favour. On approaching the competent authority with the copy of the instant order, the needful be done forthwith. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.