Mandamus cannot compel return of confiscated goods while a confiscation order remains in force.

A writ of mandamus could not be used to direct return of seized goods where a subsisting adjudication order of confiscation remained in force. The goods had been confiscated after seizure at a railway station, and they were not taken directly from the petitioner's custody, which further weakened the claim for immediate release. The petitioner's non-participation in the confiscation proceedings did not change the position because the confiscation order continued to operate until it was set aside. The request for return of the goods was therefore rejected, and the proper course was to challenge the confiscation order first.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued for return of seized goods when the goods had already been confiscated under an adjudication order and were not seized from the petitioner's custody.

Analysis: The petitioner sought release of 1000 bundles of safety matches seized at a railway station and later subject to an adjudication order of confiscation. The existence of the confiscation order was , because mandamus cannot be granted to direct return of goods while a subsisting order of confiscation remains in force. The goods were also not seized directly from the petitioner's custody, which further weakened the claim for immediate return. The fact that the petitioner was not a party to the confiscation order did not alter the legal position, since the order continued to operate until set aside.

Conclusion: The writ of mandamus was not maintainable and the request for return of the goods was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the confiscation order had to be challenged and removed before any direction for release of the goods could be sought.

---