Narbdeshwar Pandey, J.
1. This is a petition for quashing the order taking cognizance as also criminal prosecution initiated vide Muzaffarpur Town Police Station Case No. 17 of 1993 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the basis of the written report of the District Agriculture Officer, Muzaffarpur. It was alleged though the petitioner was directed to reserve certain fixed quantity of fertilizer for Manipur Block but on verification, such stock was not found. Hence it was alleged that petitioner had violated the provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (in short 'Control Order') as also the terms of the Certificate of Registration and, therefore, punishable under the Essential Commodities Act.
2. The petitioner carries on wholesale and retail business in fertilizer in the name and style of M/s. Ashok Tyre Agency and was granted certificate of registration in the year, 1985, which was also renewed till the relevant time by the District Agriculture Officer, Muzaffarpur.
3. A question arose for consideration whether under the Control Order any authority has been conferred on the District Magistrate or the District Agriculture officer to issue directions to a dealer in fertilizer with regard to sale and/or reservation of stock for sale to any particular person or group of persons and/or to limit allocation for sale on recommendations and permits issued by such authority, and whether in absence of any specified provision under the Control Order, such direction by the District Magistrate or D. A.O. in this regard are wholly unauthorised and without jurisdiction.
4. It is stated that with regard to same offence when the order of District Agriculture Officer, suspending certificate of registration, was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 5029 of 1993, a Bench of this Court quashed the order, holding that the Registering authority had no jurisdiction to issue any order contrary to the terms and conditions of the certificate of registration. Reliance was also made to another decision of this Court in the case of Shri Krishna Rice & Oil Mill Ltd. v. State of Bihar ILR (1976) 55 Pat 281, where the Court having examined different clauses of Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957 and condition No. 5 of Form-B of Certificate of Registration, held that under the provisions of the said order, the State-Government had no authority to issue directions for which no provision was available under the order. Undisputedly relevant clauses of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Form-B of Certificate of Registration are similar to that of the Control Order, 1957. Clause 2 of the Order defines 'Controller', 'Dealer' and 'Registering authority' to mean :
(e) 'Controller' means the person appointed as Controller of Fertilisers by the Central Government and includes any other person empowered by the Central Government to exercise or perform all or any of the powers, or as the case may be, functions of the Controller under this Order;
(f) 'Dealer' means a person carrying on the business of selling fertilisers, whether wholesale or retail, and includes a manufacturer and a pool handling agency carrying on such business and the agents of such person, manufacturer or pool handling agency;
(g) 'Registering authority' means a registering authority appointed under clause 26.
Clause 3 gives authority to the Central Government to fix price of fertilizer. In view of Clause 7 no person can carry whole sale and retail sale of fertilizer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certificate of Registration granted under Clause 9 by the Registering authority in Form-B on an application for such certificate in Form A, as per the provisions 'incorporated in Clause 8. Clause 26 authorises the State Government to appoint such number of persons as it thinks necessary to be Registering authorities for the purpose of this order, and may, in such notification, define the limits of local area within which such registering authority shall exercise his jurisdiction. Clause 31 empowers the Registering authority to suspend and cancel registration certificate on the grounds enumerated therein. A bare reference to the different provisions of the Control Order, as noticed above, it would be evident that the powers to control, to fix price and distribution of fertilizer are vested with the Controller and not the Registering authority or the Inspectors.
5. Undisputedly the State Government in exercise of its power conferred on it under Clause 26 has appointed the District Agriculture Officer as the registering authority for the area in question. It has already been pointed out that a dealer has to obtain a certificate of registration, to be issued by the Registering authority in Form-B, which contains certain terms and conditions. Condition No. 5 of the Certificate of Registration which in our view may be relevant for the facts in issue, is being reproduced hereunder.
The dealer shall submit a report to the Registering Authority, with a copy to the Block Development Officer or such other officer as the State Government may notify, in whose jurisdiction the place of business is situated, by the 5th of every month, showing the opening stock, receipts, sales and closing stocks of fertilisers in the preceding month. He shall also submit in time such other returns as may be prescribed by the Registering Authority.
6. For the aforesaid, it is apparent that there is no such restriction in any of the conditions of the certificate of Registration including condition No. 5 as quoted above. It is in these backgrounds while examining identical provisions of 1957 order in the case of Shri Krishna Rice & Oil Mill Ltd. ILR (1976) 55 Pat 281 (supra), this Court held that the State Government was not vested with such power of the Central Government under the Control Order to issue directions to a dealer in fertilizer regarding distribution of stock or fixation of price etc. Though a counter affidavit was filed, but no material is shown to us that such authority has been given by the Central Government to the State Government or its authority.
7. Thus, having regard to the facts of the case, particularly the decisions of this Court referred to above, in my view, the District Magistrate or the District Agriculture Officer had no authority to issue orders, restricting the wholesale dealer or retail dealer in any manner contrary to the conditions of certificate of Registration.
8. In the background of the facts, noticed above, I find no contravention of any of the statutory requirement of the Control order or the Registration of Certificate. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner for the alleged violation is illegal and without jurisdiction. I, accordingly, quash the order of the Special Judge, Muzaffarpur dated 22-9-1993 taking cognizance of the offence as well as the entire prosecution.
9. To the extent indicated above, this writ petition is, thus, allowed.
I.P. Singh, J.
10. I agree.