WP(C) 4412/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Al so heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.3. Mr. H. Rahman, learned Govt. Advocate appears for the official respondents . The petitioner, who is the owner of a truck used for transportation of LPG cylin ders from North Guwahati Bottling Plant to various destination of North East Ind ia, has approached this Court to challenge the order dated 19.9.09 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has d irected custody of the LPG cylinders, carried in the petitioner’s truck which we re seized in connection with Rangapara P.S. Case No. 172/09, to the Sales Office r, LPG, IOC. The zimma of the petitioner’s truck is given to the police by the i mpugned order dated 19.9.09. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumdar that the said order giving zimma of the cylinde rs and the truck has been passed without enabling the petitioner to make a claim for zimma of the goods. Mr. Mazumdar submits that the petitioner being the owne r of the truck and entrusted legitimately with the task of carrying the cylinder s from the bottling plant was entitled to custody of the cylinders as well as th e truck. He submits that the claim of the petitioner for zimma of the cylinders and the truck in question is to be considered under the provision of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and there should have been no reason to give zimma of the proper ty to the Sales Officer and the police. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No. 3 and the learned Govt. Advocate Mr. H. Rahman representing the State respondents sub mits that the Rangapara P.S. Case No. 172/09 has been registered when it was fou nd that an illegal refilling operation of the cylinders carried by the petitione r’s truck was going on in an unauthorized manner and under such circumstances, t he Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur has correctly passed the impugned order, direct ing zimma of the seized cylinders to the Sales Officer of the IOC and the truck to the police as a police case has already been registered for the illegal acts. Having regard to the above contention of the rival counsels, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to be given an opportunity to support the claim of zi mma of the seized cylinders and the truck under the provision of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and such claim may be considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitp ur. If the Deputy Commissioner finds that the petitioner is entitled in law for zimm a of the seized truck and cylinders, an appropriate order in this regard may be passed by him in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court is not di recting granting of zimma to the petitioner which would be considered on merit b y Authority. The Deputy Commissioner may give an opportunity to the parties to m ake their respective representation and hear them before passing any order in te rms of the direction of this Court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.