A SUMESMAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CEN EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition coming up for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, after notice to respondent, is taken up for final disposal by consent of Counsel for parties.

(2.) The petitioner is a pawn-broker by profession. On 1-12-1972 gold ornaments weighing 1825.500 grams were seized from his business premises.The respondent-Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, passed an order adjudicating in case No. XVIII8/36/72, confiscating the entire ornaments and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Gold Control Administrator, New Delhi, and the appellate authority by his order dated 19-4-1979 set aside the order of confiscation as well as the penalty wholly, absolving the petitioner of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. On 31-5-1979 the petitioner through his Counsel addressed a letter to the respondent-Collector of Central Excise. Bangalore, to return the ornaments seized pursuant to the appellate order. Since the same was not returned, he filed this writ petition under Art. 226 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution seeking for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to return the confiscated ornaments: which were seized as earlier stated on 1-12-1972. The respondent has been represented by the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri U. L. Narayana Rao.

(3.) The facts are not disputed. The learned counsel for the respondent concedes that there is an order in favour of the petitioner by the Gold Control Administrator. He, however, strongly urges that this Court should not interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution, at this stage, because a decision has been taken by the respondent to prefer and prosecute a revision petition before the Central Government under Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 82 of the Act. Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 82 of the Act reads as follows: 'The Central Government may, on its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which any decision or order has been made on appeal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order and may pass such order thereon as it may think fit. Sub-Sec. (3) of S. 82 of the Act also reads as follows: