JUDGMENT

A. P. SEN, J.:— We had allowed the appeal at the conclusion of hearing on January 31, 1986. We now proceed to give the reasons therefor.

2. In this appeal by special leave the short point is as to the legality and propriety of an ad interim order dated December 11, 1985 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of R. N. Pyne and Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, JJ. setting aside an interlocutory order of Padma Khastgir, J. dated November 6, 1985. By the impugned order, the learned Judges have directed the release to the respondents of more or less 600 metric tonnes of tin plates which, according to the State Government, are worth nearly about Rs. 60 lakhs, seized from them for alleged contravention of item 24, Sch. 1 to the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and which, according to the respondents, are nothing but waste material, on condition set out by them, namely, on the furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs in the form of fixed deposit receipts and also on furnishing security of immovable property being 0.71 acre of land situate at Police Station Titaghur, District 24 Pargana.

3. The learned Judges while making the impugned order have unfortunately made certain observations which seek (seem?) to prejudge the issues involved in the prosecution launched against the respondents by the State Government for committing alleged offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of the mandatory provisions of paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and of having committed alleged offences punishable under Ss. 120B and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. They have gone to the extent of observing that the notices for confiscation of the seized goods were issued by the Additional Collector, 24 Paragana under S. 6A of the Act and made observation that they do not answer the description of tin plates, tin plates waste, waste or defective tin free steel sheets and therefore were not essential commodities within the, meaning of S. 2(a) of the Act and the said Order issued thereunder.

4. Looking to the seriousness of the charges and the circumstances attendant upon the seizure of the huge quantity of tin plates, the learned single Judge had very rightly and properly refused to grant the application for release of the seized goods. It is rather surprising that the learned Judges in hearing an appeal from an interlocutory order should have passed the impugned order, directing release of the seized goods without affording an opportunity to the State Government to file a return to the writ petition. There is material on record to show that the seized goods are essential commodities, namely, Notification No. SO. 508(E)/ESS/Iron & Steel-2A dated 1-7-1985 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel Mines & Coal, and examination report dated November 13, 1985 by the Appraiser (Metal Expert).

5. We are greatly distressed that the learned Judges despite a long line of decisions of this Court starting from Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436 to Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260, down to State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217, deprecating the cursory manner of passing such interlocutory orders for the mere asking, should have passed the impugned order in the manner that they did. It seems that the pronouncements of this Court have had little effect on them. The result of this has been that the respondents under threat of contempt secured release of such valuable seized material practically furnishing little or no security. We Are really amazed that the State Government should have been compelled to release the goods as per the directions of the learned Judges. What makes it worse is that the respondents are facing prosecutions under S. 3 read with Ss. 7 and 8 of the Ess