Non-levy cement is not an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and its seizure and sale without any legal authority is illegal. The owner of the cement is entitled to compensation for the illegal seizure and sale of his cement.

1. THIS order will govern the revisional application as well as the writ petition which have been heard together.

2. IT appears that before February, 1982 cement was a controlled commodity and nobody was entitled to purchase cement and use the same freely. By an order dated 28. 2. 82 entitled as the Cement Control (Third amendment) Order, 1982, the Central Government, under the powers conferred by sections 184 and 25 of the Industrial (Development and Regulation)Act, 1951, ordered that cement produced in a Cement Plant would be of two categories viz., "levy Cement" and "non-levy Cement" it was enjoined by that Cement Control Order, 1982 that an cement producers would have to retain and dispose of 66. 6% of the installed capacity as per Cement Control order, 1967 and that as regards non-levy cement, i. e. cement produced in excess of 66. 6% of the installed capacity the manufacturers and dealers would be entitled to sell, dispose of and deal with non-levy cement freely. There was thus virtually de-control of non-levy cement in excess of 66. 6% of the installed capacity in a cement plant. On or about 28. 7. 82, the writ petitioner as well as the petitioner in criminal revision, Safikur Rahaman, had in his go-down at Malda town about 175 bags of cement. On that date, he was bringing from Calcutta another 240 bags of non-levy cement purchased by him for his own use and brought the same to his residence at Malda by lorry No. BHI 8472. While the cement was in the process of being unloaded from that lorry at about 4. 15 P. M. on 28. 7. 82, those 240 bags of cement as well as the 175 bags of cement in the go down were seized by one. M. Chatterjee, Sub-Inspector of English Bazar P. S. and the petitioner as well as the driver of the truck were arrested under section 41 of the Code of criminal Procedure. English Bazar P. S. G. D. No. 1069 dated 28. 7. 82 was made. On 29. 7. 82, the petitioner and the driver of the truck were produced before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malda and were granted bail. The petitioner made a prayer on that date before the learned Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate for return of the seized cement to him. The learned magistrate called for a report from the Investigating Officer. On 31. 7. 82, the prayer of the petitioner for return of the seized cement was rejected. The petitioner moved a revisional application before the learned Sessions judge, Malda. The said revisional application, being Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1982, was admitted on 2. 8. 82. The operation of the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 31. 7. 82 was stayed till the hearing of the re visional application. The re visional application was heard by the learned sessions Judge on 9. 8. 82 and was allowed on 11. 8. 82. By that order dated 11. 8. 82, the learned Sessions Judge. Malda directed the learned Magistrate to release the seized cement to the petitioner as early as possible after obtaining a bond from his. In the meantime before that order of release of the seized cement was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda, there was an ex parte direction for sale of the seized 415 bags of cement by the earned Collector, Malda, on 6. 8. 82 on the basis of a report from the Officer-in-Charge, english Bazar P. S. dated 29. 7. 82. By that order dated 6. 8. 82 the learned Collector, Malda, directed the Officer-in-Charge, English Bazar p. S. to sell the entire seized stock of cement to the Zilla Parishad, Malda, at controlled price. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda on 11. 8. 82 in Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1982, the petitioner furnished requisite bond on 13. 8. 82. On 16. 8. 82, the petitioner filed a petition in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Malda, for getting back the seized cement. The learned Sessions Judge called for an explanation from the Investigating Officer as it was alleged by the petitioner that the Officer-in-Charge, English Bazar Police S