IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33926 of 2002 Bijoy Kumar Dwivedi, son of Jagdish Narayan Dwivedi, resident of Mohalla Telia Toli, Bagha Bazar, P.S. Bagha, District-West Champaran ---- Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar -------- ------ Opposite party. ----------- 7. 29.7.2011 Heard Mr. Saket Tiwary for the petitioner, and Mr. J.N. Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. This application has been filed, inter alia, for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, arising out of Bagha P.S. Case No.135 of 2000 registered under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Maistrate, Bagha, West Champaran. It appears from the written report dated 15.5.2000 filed by the Block Supply Officer with the Officer In-charge of Bagha police station that 50 Quintals of sugar, edible oil and pulses were seized from the petitioner’s Godown for want of requisite licence in terms of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification), Order 1984 and also that there was no display of price and stock outside the Godown under the provisions of Display Order, 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the failure of the State Government to specify the classification of cities, the provisions of the Bihar Trade 2 Articles (Licences Unification), Order 1984 are not workable as has been held in several decisions of this Court. He draws our attention to the order dated 24.6.1996 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1045 of 1987 wherein it has been clearly held as follows: “ It has been settled by this Court that if A Class and B Class Cities are not defined the Unification Order in relation to edible oil will not be workable. It has been also stated by a catena of decisions of this Court that when the Unification order is not workable the person can not be prosecuted for violation of its provisions.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the materials on record and also in view of the legal position settled through various decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that continuation of the prosecution proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court, inasmuch as no offence can be said to have been committed in relation to the goods dealt in by the petitioner under the provisions of the Unification Order being itself unworkable in that regard. This application is accordingly allowed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( Vikash Jain,J)