R.N.SAHAY, J.

1. This is a motion to quash the seizure of coal by respondent No. 2, Shri J. S. Negi, Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, in connection with Gobindpur, P. S. No. 32 of 1993, dated 20-1-1993. It appears that on 20-1-1993, the Assistant Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force (respondent No. 2) conducted a raid with other members of the Central Industrial Security Force personnel in the depot of the petitioner and seized 225 tonnes of soft coke and 80 tonnes of stem coal (Annexure-1).

2. The petitioner is a licensee under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, bearing licence No. 5/GND/1990 which is valid upto date. The case of the petitioner is that he is the lawful owner of the coal and his ownership is supported by documents. The coal was purchased from M/s. Trimurti Coal Company, Govindpur, Dhanbad. The petitioner has annexed one cash memo with regard to the purchase as Annexure-3 to this application. The petitioner, had also purchased coal from Durga Enterprises, P. O. Jamadoba, Dhanbad who in turn had purchased it from Dugdha Coal Washery of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. By a notification dated 21st April, 1992, the State of Bihar has lifted the control on coal and after the aforesaid notification no licence is required for transaction in coal. A case was registered against the petitioner on the report of the respondent No. 2 under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending investigation.

3. The main question is for consideration is as to whether respondent No. 2, who is Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad, was empowered under any provision of the law to seize the coal from the depot of the petitioner oni suspicion that it was stolen property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 and submitted that under Clause 14 of the said order, only District Supply Officer, District Supply Inspector, Supply Inspector or any Police Officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police have been vested with the power of search and seizure if there is reason ground to believe that if any of the provisions of control order has been violated. In our opinion as the seizure was not made under the provision of Bihar Control Order, 1956 any reference to the said order is not relevant on the purpose of the case.

4. By Section 3 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 it is enacted that there shall be constituted and maintained by the Central Government an armed force of the Union to be called the Central Industrial Security Force for the better protection and Security of Industrial undertakings owned by the Government.

5. Section 4 of the said Act provides for appointment of one Director General of the Force and other persons to be Inspector-General, Deputy Inspector-General, Commandants, Deputy Commandants or Assistant Commandants of the Force.

6. Section 10 of the said Act lays down the duties of every members of the Force. The main function of the force is to protect and safeguard the industrial undertakings owned by the Central Government and such other installations and as specified by the Government to be vital for the carrying on of the work in those undertakings.

7. Section 11 of the said Act provides as follows :

"Power to arrest without warrant. (1) Any member of the Force may, without any order from a Magistrate and without a Warrant, arrest (i) any person who voluntarily causes hurt to, or attempts voluntarily to cause hurt to, or wrongfully restrains or attempts wrongfully to restrain or assaults, threatens to assault, or uses, or threatens or attempts to use criminal force to any employee, referred to in clause (d) of Section 10, or to him or any other member of the Force, in discharge of his duty as such employee or in execution of his duty as such member, as the case may be, or with, intent to prevent or to d