M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by a learned single Judge, dated 2.12.2010, made in W.P.No.27943 of 2004, whereby the appellants were directed to fix the market value for the goods seized from the respondent and to release 3/4th of the seized goods, as per the orders passed by the 1st appellant in G.O.Ms.No.246, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection [G] Department, dated 22.8.2003.

2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-Government would submit that the Government value fixed for ¾ of the seized goods had already been paid to the respondent. The learned single Judge committed an error in directing the appellants to pay the prevailing market value of the goods seized. Therefore, to that extent, the appeal will have to be allowed.

3. We are unable to accept the contentions put forth by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. The order passed by the 1st appellant, which is under appeal, is clear to the effect that what has to be confiscated is only ¼ of the goods, meaning thereby, the remaining ¾ of the confiscated goods will have to be returned to the respondent and that th