B. N. Sapru,J. - (1.) THE writ petition of M/s. Hari Oil and General Mills is being decided alongwith the other writ petitions at the admission stage. In some cases the counter affidavits are on record, whereas in the writ petition of M/s. Hari Oil and General Mills there is no counter affidavit. However, we arc disposing off the writ petition on the footing that the circumstances asserted against the petitioner are correct.
(2.) WE are of the opinion that a pure question of law is involved in these writ petitions. In the case of M/s. Hari Oil and General Mills, the petitioner has a licence in Form 8 prescribed under U. P. Oil-seeds and Oil-seed Products Control Order, 1966 (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the 1966 Order ') which was framed under the powers delegated by the Central Government under the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner is a manufacturer/producer of edible oils. On 29-9-1986 the District Supply Officer, Mathura, alongwith the Supply Inspector and other officials made an inspection of the petitioner's Mill premises and having discovered breaches of the various Control Orders framed under the Essential Commodities Act, lodged a FIR at P. S. Narholi, District Mathura, on the basis of which the police registered a crime case No. 115 of 1986, under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act ') on the ground that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Clause 3 of the conditions of the Licence granted to the petitioner under the U. P. Oil Seeds and the Oil Seed Products Control Order 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Order) as also the provisions of Clauses 3 and 8 of the U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the 1977 Order '). The relevant allegations in the FIR are reproduced below : (Hindi portion omitted-Editor) The account books and certain essential commodities were seized by the officers concerned and were given in the; custody of the Supurdar.
(3.) BY this petition, the petitioner M/s. Hari Oil and General Mills prays that the FIR on the basis of which Crime No. 115 of 1986 under Sections 3/7 of the Act has been registered against the petitioner, be quashed and the respondents be prohibited from taking any action on the basis of the said FIR against the petitioner and the petitioner has also prayed for the release of the seized goods and documents. At this stage it will be useful to deal with the other connected cases. In the other connected writ petitions, the; essential facts are that the petitioners are the manufacturers/producers of edible oil. Their grievance is that they were informed by the respondents that they must obtain the Dealers Licence in Form 8 under the 1966 Order as they would be liable to prosecution if they did not obtain such a licence. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioners were advised to take such a licence as it was required to run their business. The petitioner's case is that they are the manufacturers/producers and they are not required to take ;he licences but they were compelled to take out licences and renew the same. They pray that a writ in the nature of prohibition be issued against the respondents restraining them from launching any prosecution of the petitioner, their servants and agents for any contravention of the 1966 Order which, they claim, is no; applicable to them.;