JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. A raid was conducted on the premises of the petitioner. Amongst other things, primary gold 120.750 grams, in weight, was seized. (It appears that out of the gold seized, one item was ornament of 4 grams which was not primary gold). Proceedings were taken under the Gold Control Act and the gold was directed to be confiscated by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 25.3.1977. A penalty of Rs. 500A was also levied.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal was disposed of on 24.10.1985. The operative portion of the appellate order reads thus:
...As such, I uphold the validity of the impugned order with regard to the penalty, but direct that the absolute confiscation of the primary gold be modified to one of release on a redemption fine of Rs. 7.500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five hundred only). The release shall be in accordance with the procedure set out in law for release of primary gold. The penalty is sustained. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
It would be evident from the reading of the said extract that the Collector (Appeals) did not prescribe the time within which the petitioner could obtain the release on paying the redemption fine of Rs. 7.500/-. The petitioner says that he applied on 23.7.1987 for the release of gold on payment of the said amount but when there was no response, he filed another representation on 9.5.1988. The. Assistant Collector has rejected his request through his letter dated 28.7.1988/1.9.1988. It is mentioned in the letter that as no time limit have been prescribed in the appellate order, the time for the said purpose must be taken to be three months. The petitioner was called upon to obtain clarification on the said point from the Collector (Appeals).
3. The petitioner, however, did not approach the Collector (Appeals) but approached this Court by way of this writ petition. While we recognise that the petitioner ought not to have approached this Court straightaway but should have approached the Collector (Appeals) for clarification as advised in the letter of the Assistant Collector afore-mentioned, we do not think that in the circumstances of the case, it would be advisable to drive the petitioner for clarification to the Collector (Appeals). This writ petition was filed in March, 1989 and we are now in December, 1990. The Gold Control Act has since been repealed.
4. Having regard to all the above facts, we hold that the petitioner's request for release made on 9.5.1988 ought not to have been rejected. It is accordingly held that if the petitioner deposits Rs. 75001- within two months from today along with the penalty, if not already deposited, the gold seized from him shall be released in accordance with the order of the Collector (Appeals).
5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.
6. Copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days.