Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.

This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order, dated the 28th November. 1974, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in exercise of powers under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), confiscating certain articles alleged to have been seized from the business premises of the petitioner. A copy of the said order is annexure 7' to the writ application.

2. The petitioner is a retail food-grains licensed dealer under the Bihar Food-grains Dealer's Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order') and runs a grocery shop at Upper Bazar, Gobindpur (Dhanbad). On the 27th October, 1974, the respondent Circle Officer raided the business premises of the petitioner and seized food-grains, sugar and several other articles, in respect of which seizure lists (annexures 1' and 1/A') were prepared. On the 28th October, 1974, he submitted a report to the Officer-in-charge, Gobindpur Police station, stating, inter alia, that on the 27th October, 1974, he, along with some other officers, had raided the shop of the petitioner and had seized a total quantity of 37.38 quintals of different types of grains: no stock register was found, nor any entry of the grains was shown in any register, and, as such, the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the different Control Orders and was liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Act. A copy of the said report is annexure 2' to the writ application. On the same day, he also submitted a report to the respondent Deputy Commissioner enclosing copies of the seizure lists, on or before the 5th November, 1974, a petition for release of the aforesaid seized articles was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, who, after having heard both sides' passed an order on that very day saying that the articles be returned to the petitioner on proper receipt. He also directed some of the articles to be released on petitioner's executing security bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount each. In paragraph 2 of the said order, however, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that the materials covered by the Act, shall be sold under the supervision of the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the A.D.S.O) and the sale proceeds shall be deposited in the treasury. A copy of the said order is annexure 3' to the writ petition.

3. It appears that, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved this Court, giving rise to Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3290 of 1974, which was placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court, where it was urged that there was an apparent contradiction in the second paragraph of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This Court, by its order, dated the 11th. November, 1974, pointed out that, while in paragraph I of the order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had ordered release of the seized articles, in paragraph 2 he had directed them to be sold under the supervision of the A.D.S.O. and the sale proceeds to be deposited in the treasury. This Court felt, that, perhaps, this was due to inadvertence and directed the petitioner to file a separate petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, pointing out the above facts to the learned Magistrate. A copy of this Court's order is annexure "4" to the writ application.

4. Before a fresh order could be passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in pursuance of the observations of this Court, on the 21st. November, 1974, the respondent Deputy Commissioner passed an order under section 6A of the Act, saying that, from the report of the Anchal Adhikari, Gobindpur, dated the 28th October, 1974, it appeared that essential commodities had been seized, from the premises of the petitioner on the 27th. October, 1974 and that he was satisfied that there had been a contravention of Orders fra