The court upheld the direction to pay the prevailing market value of the seized goods, as per the order passed by the 1st appellant.

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 the said order has become final. The learned single Judge, taking note of a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been taken note of in an earlier judgment, was pleased to give a direction, directing the appellants to pay the respondent the value ascertained, in terms of the then market value of the goods seized in open market.

4. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The said order has been passed based on the consent given by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, what has been directed by the 1st appellant himself is to return ¾ of the confiscated goods. Therefore, in the lieu of the same, the market value for the said goods will have to be ascertained and then be paid to the respondent. In such view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order passed, which is in tune with the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 22.8.2003, by the 1st respondent himself. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned single Judge and pay the differential amount to the respondent, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.