IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16733 of 2011 Praveen Kumar S/O Late Govind Prasad Singh Resident Of Village- Rajauli, P.S.-Rajauli, District-Nawada. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The District Magistrate, Nawada. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawada Sadar, Nawada. 5. The Supply Inspector, Warasaliganj, District-Nawada. ……Respondents. ------------------ For the petitioner : M/s Mukesh Kant & Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P. 20. ----------- 06/ 18.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i) For direction upon the respondent authorities particularly respondent no.4, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Nawada to unseal the Gas Godown of the petitioner, where he runs business of distribution of gas cylinders supplied by the I.O.C. company for distribution among the consumers. ii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is an L.P.G. Distributor for township of Warsalignj within the district of Nawada since 2006 and running his business in the name and style of “Super Gas Agency” without any obstruction. He further submits that a frivolous FIR was filed against the petitioner on 24.08.2011 bearing - 2 - Warasaliganj P.S.Case No.123 of 2011 under the provisions of Sections 406, 409, 420/120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but no step was taken in that regard either by the police or by the court. He further stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warasaliganj on his own motion sealed the business premises of the petitioner on 28.8.2011 without any valid reason, although he had no authority to seal the business premises and could have only ordered for search and seizure if there was any valid reason. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that only the gas godown has been seized and not the business premises of the petitioner, namely his office. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the from the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the business premises cannot only be confined to an office of a concern and it has necessarily to include godown of the said office also which is integral part of the business. 6. A similar matter had been considered by another Bench of this Court who vide order dated 24.08.2007 allowed CWJC No. 4364 of 2007 specifically found that there was no such provision which could have authorized the Sub-Divisional Officer to seal the aforesaid premises of the petitioner. Furthermore, none of the parties could produce any provision which authorizes the Sub-Divisional Officer to seal the premises although he is authorized only to search - 3 - and seizure. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is quite apparent that the act of the Sub-divisional Officer in sealing the gas godown of the petitioner on 28.08.2011 is illegal and without any jurisdiction and such orders can be passed only by a court considering the case against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warsaliganj dated 28.08.2011 sealing the gas godown of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Warsaliganj is directed to unseal the gas godown of the petitioner immediately on receipt of a copy of this order. Sunil/ (S. N. Hussain, J.)