IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1011 of 2009 1. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O SUKHDEO MAHTO R/O VILL.- SONBARSA, P.S.- SONBARSA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 2. LAL BABU S/O SUKHDEO MAHTO R/O VILL.- SONBARSA, P.S.- SONBARSA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 3. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SUKHDEO MAHTO R/O VILL.- SONBARSA, P.S.- SONBARSA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI 3. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER SONBARSA ----------- 02 23.12.2009 The petitioner by this writ application has challenged the order passed in Confiscation Case No.05 of 2009 by the Collector, Sitamarhi under Section-6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act in respect of confiscation of 250 quintals of sugar, which were seized from a truck, while being transported on 15.09.2009, on the allegation that the same was being carried without a licence. It was alleged that with effect from 14.08.2009 trade in sugar became licensed in terms of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition challenges the validity of the - 2 - said confiscation order. He submits that the order is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as in law. On the date when seizure was effected, the sugar was not a commodity for licensing requirement was operative. In my view, he appears to be correct. Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 was framed by the State Government in exercise of powers delegated to it under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act by the Central Government as originally enacted. The said order on sugar as one of the commodities in respect of which there were storage restriction and licensing restriction. By amendment of the said order sugar was excluded from the schedule in the year 2002. Thus, it ceases to be commodity to be regulated either by licence or by storage. It appears that State Government wanted to bring the same within regulation again, as such, it issued an order on 14.08.2009 repealing the - 3 - earlier order by which sugar was excluded from the schedule. Thus, effectively bringing sugar back in the schedule of the Unification Order, as is required under Section 3(5)(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. Such an order has to be mandatorily notified in the official gazette for it to be enforceable in law. Mr. Agarwal has brought to my notice an order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C.No.12427 of 2009 dated 12.10. 2009 wherein this issue was raised that the order had not been published in the gazette even when that order was being passed in October, 2009. Learned State counsel could not produce the gazette notification. The Court, thus, noticed that even as laid on October 2009 the order aforesaid which purported to bring sugar within regulation was not notified in the official gazette. If that be so then in terms of Section-3(5)(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, the order re- - 4 - notifying sugar had not taken effect on the date of occurrence that 15.09.2009. On that ground alone not only the seizure but the confiscation proceeding become invalid in law. The order of Collector, Sitamarhi passed in Confiscation Case No.05 of 2009 dated 03.11.2009 is, thus, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the sugar which has been ordered to be confiscated would be released to the petitioner. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Collector, Sitamarhi by FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)