LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner is a licensee under the Bihar Edible Oil Wholesale Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) framed under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act and is running its business in the town of Muzuffarpur. By the present application, it has prayed for quashing the seizure of 521 tins of mustard oil along with certain documents effected on 26-8-1977 as evidenced by Annexure 4 to the writ application.

2. According to the petitioners case, the place of his business is situated in Mohalla Saraiyaganj in Muzaffarpur town and the place for storage of goods of the petitioner is also the same. On 24-8-1977 the petitioner purchased 576 tins of mustard oil from a business firm in Kanpur, each tin weighing 15.5 Kgs. The tins were transported from Kanpur to Muzaffarpur by a private motor vehicle. Since the place of storage of the petitioner had not sufficient vacant space, the petitioner took on rent, a house belonging to one Murli Prasad respondent No. 6 in this case, in Mohalla Doma Pokhar in the town of Muzaffarpur and on 26-8-1977 stored the tins there. According to the further case of the petitioner, an information about storing the oil tins in the house of Murli Prasad was given to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On that very day, after sale of 55 tins of oil to some purchasers, the entire stock of the remaining 521 tins along with certain documents were seized by the District Supply Officer, respondent No. 4. It has been alleged that there was no reason to believe that the petitioner had committed any offence and for that reason the seizure was illegal. to paragraph 13 of the writ application, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has learnt that the District Magistrate, respondent No. 2, was proposing to start a confiscation proceeding under the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, but since valid seizure of goods in question is a condition precedent for initiating such a proceeding, the authorities should not take steps in this regard in the facts and circumstances of the case. With these averments, the writ application was filed on 12-9-1977 and was placed for admission on 23-9-1977. The Bench hearing the admission matter directed notice to be issued and further passed the following Interim order :

"Let the seized mustard oil be sold under the supervision of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, by the petitioner.

This direction is, however, subject to any confiscation proceeding having not been started in the matter. If by the time this order is communicated to the said Sub-divisional Magistrate, a confiscation proceeding is started, the direction to sell will be deemed to be non est. The sale proceeds, on sale, if made, will be kept in treasury, which the petitioner may draw on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

3. This case was taken up for hearing by another Bench in January, 1978, but had to be adjourned several times at the request of the petitioner or on the joint request of both the parties. On 5-5-1978, when a fresh prayer for post-ponement was made, the learned Judges hearing the case directed that it would not be treated as part heard and may be heard by another Bench which may be available. Since that Bench did not continue. The case was placed before us for hearing.

4. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 has been filed and it has been stated that a confiscation proceeding had been started on 7-9-79 and the petitioner has already filed a show cause in the proceeding which is pending before the District Magistrate. Muzaffarpur. It has been suggested that whatever objection the petitioner may have against the seizure will be examined in the confiscation proceeding and this court should decline to entertain the writ application. The respondents have also denied many allegations made in the writ application and have given their counter version. The respo