- (1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of finally.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner has filed appeal against the order dated 5-10-2007 of the District Magistrate, Agra by which the tractor of the petitioner has been confiscated in exercise of powers under Section 72 of the UP. Excise Act. By the same order the petitioner has been given an option to pay the market price of the tractor. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which is pending before the District Judge, Agra. In the said appeal the petitioner applied for stay. The District Judge, Agra granted a conditional stay order that the petitioner should furnish Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs within 15 days and on this condition it has been directed that the auction sale of the tractor shall remain stayed. The petitioner's Counsel submitted that the condition imposed in the interim order is too harsh and that instead of the Bank guarantee, some other security to the satisfaction of the District Judge be taken. In the facts and circumstances, it appears that the ends of justice would be served if security other than in form of cash or Bank guarantee to the satisfac tion of the District Judge is taken. Counsel for the petitioner states that the peti tioner is ready to furnish security of immovable property. Accordingly the order of the District Judge, Agra dated 26-10-2007 to the extent he has imposed the condition requiring the petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to furnish security of some immovable property to the sat isfaction of the District Judge within such time as the District Judge may grant. .;