ISMAIL, J. - (1.) THIS petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and other material papers filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K.C. Rajappa, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order :
(2.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the Asst. Collector of C. Ex., I.D.O. Sivakasi and the Inspector of C.E., Prev. Group. Office of the Collr. of C.E., New Delhi to release the goods and hand over to the petitioner 1000 bundles of safety matches seized on 29-8-1972 at Delhi Lahori Gate station and now lying with the second respondent, valued at Rs. 34, 000/- under the provisions of C.E. Act And Rules, 1944. The petitioner contends that he purchased these matches from different manufacturers in Sivakasi and despatched them to one M/s. Mahavir Trading Co, at Delhi, pursuant to a contract entered into between them, that the said 1000 bundles were seized at Lahori Gate railway station on 29-8-1972, that subsequently the petitioner's petition to get the goods released on furnishing security was not ordered and that therefore the petitioner is entitled to the writ of mandamus prayed for. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that on 28-2-1974 an adjudication order has been passed under which the goods have been confiscated to the Government. In view of the existence of this order no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondent directing them to return the goods to the petitioner. Now, two things are clear. One is that the goods themselves have not been seized from the custody of the petitioner and the petitioner himself admits that they were seized at Delhi Lahori Gate railway station, when the goods were sent by the petitioner to M/s Mahavir Trading Co., New Delhi. Secondly there has been an order confiscating the identical goods in question. The only contention that the learned counsel for the petitioner put forward is that the petitioner is not a party to that order. But that does not in any way affect the situation. So long as that order is there, without getting rid of that order, the petitioner cannot ask for a mandamus for return of the goods to him, particularly when the goods themselves were not seized directly from petitioner.Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.;