S L VASANTHAKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this writ appeal is presented against the order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition presented by the petitioner in which he had challenged the legality of seizure of certain quantities of gold and also cash belonging to the appellant by the 4th respondent.

(2.) the facts of the case, in brief are these.- the appellant is a certified goldsmith and licensed pawn broker and money lender carrying on his business in the city of bellary. On 25th august, 1989 when the appellant was not in station, as he had gone to rajasthan, the 4th respondent conducted a raid and search of the business premises of the appellant. After search the 4th respondent seized gold weighing 569.900 gms. And also cash of Rs. 77,000/-. On receiving information, the appellant, who was at Rajasthan rushed back to bellary and made a representation on 30th august, 1989 and requested the 4th respondent to return the gold and cash seized. In his representation, he stated that the entire gold belonged to his various customers and the same had been accounted for by him in gs 13 register and the cash of Rs. 77,000/- also had been accounted for in the day book of the appellant and therefore there was no justification for seizing the gold and cash. Therefore, in the writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the 4th respondent to return the gold and cash seized from the appellant.

(3.) the learned single judge on a detailed consideration of the contentions urged by the appellant, held that the writ forum was not an appropriate forum for deciding the various questions raised by the appellant and all those points were required to be urged before the appropriate statutory authorities and it was only when the final order of the authorities went against the appellant, he had to approach this court. The learned judge also held that it was not made out that the 4th respondent had no competence to seize the gold and cash on 25-8-1989 and the 4th respondent had also pointed out to the materials which were requisite for the formation of the belief as required under Section 66 of the gold control act. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has presented this writ appeal.