power from the control order to search the premises and seize the articles etc. but there is no provision of sealing of the business premises of a person under the Control Order. Therefore, it is urged that the said action of sealing of premises is totally without jurisdiction and, as such, order should be passed for removal of the seal. Several decisions of this Court have been referred in this regard though not having been passed with respect to L.P.G. Control Order but in connection with Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the „Unification Order‟) as well as under identical provisions of Seeds Act, 1966. In Muneshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [2001 (2) PLJR 265] , a learned Single Judge has found that though an authority can exercise such other powers as may be necessary for the purpose of the Act or any Rule made thereunder, however, in the absence of any provision empowering the authority to seal the godown or premises, that action cannot be sustained in law. Similarly in one of the un-reported decision dated 6.12.1994 passed in Cr. Misc. No.17828/1994(Nandu Sultana Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.), it has been held that under Control Order enacted in terms of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for the purpose of regulation of the trade articles, there is no provision for putting seal either on the business premises or godown, therefore, direction was given to remove the seal.
