An Inspector must possess specific qualifications and proper notification as outlined in law to lawfully conduct search and seizure; failure to comply renders such actions illegal.

Judgment :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the competency of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Rourkela (Opposite Party No.4) in conducting the search and seizure in the business premises of the Petitioner, to quash the report submitted by the Opposite Party No.4, as at Annexure-1, to quash the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Sundargarh (Opposite Party No.2) so also the proceeding in Misc. Case No.43 of 2012, now pending in the Court of Opposite Party No.3, for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, shortly hereinafter, „Control Order, 1985‟.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that license for retail dealership of fertilizer was issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Sundargarh (Opposite Party No.6) in favour of the Petitioner, which was valid till 17.03.2014. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Rourkela (Opposite Party No.4) conducted search in the business premises of the Petitioner and seized the license, stock register and other materials alleging contravention of provisions of the Clause 4, 5, 8 and 35(1)(a) of the Control Order,1985 and submitted a report before the Collector & District Magistrate, Sundargarh for initiation of Confiscation Proceeding. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 registered Misc. Case No. 43 of 2012 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, in short “the Act,1955”, against the Petitioner directing the District Agriculture Officer, Sundargarh to sell the seized fertilizer so also to credit the sale proceeds to the Government Treasury. Further, the Opposite Party No.2, vide order dated 29.08.2012, directed for transfer of the case record to the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela (Opposite Party No.3) for proceeding further and disposal of the case.

3. The writ petition has been preferred basically on the grounds that on perusal of the report of the Opposite Party No.4, as at Annexure-1, the Opposite Party No.4, who is alleged to have been empowered to investigate the case under the Act, 1955, as per the Home Department Notification No.31045/D & A dated 07.08.2004, carried out the search in the business premises of the Petitioner on receipt of allegation. However, the said notification has neither been notified in the Official Gazette nor the Opposite Party No.4 has been appointed vide the said notification to be the Inspector of Fertilizer for the purpose of carrying out the investigation for alleged contravention of the Control Order, 1985. The Opposite Party No.5, who carried out the said investigation in his official capacity as the Opposite Party No.4, does not possess the qualification for appointment as Fertilizer Inspector, in terms of the Control Order, 1985.

A ground has also been urged in the writ petition that as the Opposite Party No.4 is not authorized to conduct search, seizure of stock and other materials so also submit the report made vide Annexure-1, therefore the proceeding under Section 6-A of th