WP(C) 7274/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr PJ Saikia, learned counsel for petitioner, as well as Mrs HM Phukan, le arned state counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the seizure of lubricat ing oils and grease by Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies, Bureau of Investigati on (Economic Offences) on 27.9.2002 from his business premises for violation of clause (3) & (4) of Lubricating Oils and Greases (Processing, Supply & Distribut ion Regulation) Order, 1987(in short, 1987 Order), contending inter alia that th ough on 4.3.1998 he made an application with required fees for issuance of licen ce and pursuant to which necessary enquires were made, no licence however was is sued to him and instead he was verbally permitted to start his business of selli ng lubricating oils and grease which he did on and from 11th January 1999 from h is business premises where Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies, Bureau of Investi gation (Economic Offences) had raided and seized certain quantity of such articl es. According to learned counsel, since the petitioner was allowed to start business by the licencing authority from 11th January 1999, on being satisfied t hat all requirements of law were fulfilled, the articles ought not to have been seized for non issuance of licence as the delay in issuance of licences was caus ed due to reasons attributable to the department only, and not to the petitioner . Learned counsel further submits that during pendency of the writ petition, in terms of the interim order dated 18th May 2004 passed in MC no.493/2004 allowing the petitioner sell the seized articles which were given in his zimma, the peti tioner had sold the articles and submitted an indemnity bond of Rs.1,20,330/-(ru pees one lakh twenty thousand three hundred thirty) with the Deputy Commissioner , Guwahati, after keeping an account of the sale proceeds. Learned counsel there fore submits that the seizure memo may be set aside and the petitioner be discha rged from the bond executed. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents, des pite pendency of this writ petition for the last eight years, learned state coun sel submits that in fact on the date of seizure, that is on 27.92002, no licence as required under the 1987 Order was issued permitting the petitioner to deal i n lubricating oils and grease. It has been submitted that there is no question o f allowing the petitioner verbally to sell those articles, as without the licenc e the petitioner cannot start dealing in lubricating oils and grease and for doi ng so he is liable to be punished under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities A ct. It is not in dispute that licence, which is required to be issued under the 1987 Order, was not in existence on 27.9.2002, when the articles were seized . The licence had been issued on 8.1.2003. By the order dated 18th May 2004 pass ed in MC no.493/2004, the petitioner, however, was allowed to sell the seized ar ticles, which were given in his zimma, with an undertaking to maintain the accou nt and to furnish an indemnity bond of Rs.1,20,330/-(rupees one lakh twenty thou sand three hundred and thirty) with the Deputy Commissioner, which the petitione r complied with. The petitioner cannot deal in such articles without obtaining a licence under the 1987 Order. That being the position, the seizure list seizing the articles in questi on cannot be quashed. The petitioner, however, can continue with his business, a s the licence was granted to him, with due compliance of all requirements of law . It would also be open to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate pr oceeding under the law, if so advised. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.