Heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

(i) To quash Exts. P2, P4,P4 (a) & P4(b) issued by the 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.

(ii) Alternatively to direct the 1st respondent to release the goods and the lorry detained pursuant to Exts. P4 to P4(b) by the issue of writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.

(iii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.

3. The petitioner is substantially aggrieved by the detention of goods by the 1st respondent and issuance of Exts. P2, P4, P4(a) and P4(b) as completely illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence the Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to Ext. P3 contends that continued detention of goods is ex-facie without adverting to the documents on which the petitioner is relying on to show legal movement of goods and the omission if any is said to have occasioned at the time of inspection by the officers due to the innocence of the driver. He submits that the goods was transported with all valid documents and there is no justification for continuing to detain the subject goods.

4. The learned Government Pleader objects to the maintainability of the writ petition principally by contending that most of the submissions now canvassed by the petitioner are circumstances verified and thereafter if the bona fides in the plea of the petitioner are proved, it is for the 1st respondent to pass orders as are warranted in the circumstances of the case. According to her this Court, if considers either the objections raised by the petitioner against the detention of goods or accepts the explanation and considers releasing the goods, the same amounts to deviating from the scheme under the Act. According to her the petitioner at best could be given liberty to file additional representation/explanation and the authorities could also be directed to pass orders within three days from the date of receipt of the additional representation/explanation from the petitioner.

I have perused the record and without much deliberation it can be stated that the petitioner ought to be allowed to raise the objections already made through Ext. P3 together with the additional representation/explanation if any, i. e, made by the petitioner in this behalf. Keeping in view the above writ petition is disposed of by this order:-

(a) Petitioner, is given liberty to file additional representation/explanation by enclosing a copy of this order within twenty four hours from today and the 1st respondent shall consider the objections raised in Ext. P3 as well as the additional representation/ explanation pass an order on or before Saturday. The 1st respondent if is satisfied with the explanation given by petitioner or on the assurance of the petitioner to provide bank guarantee for the tax amount together with penalty, the 1st respondent ensures release of goods on or before the time stipulated by this order. Registry is directed to hand over copy of judgment forthwith.