Reason to Believe Requirement: seizure of gold ornaments failed where no pre-existing material showed statutory contravention.

A search and seizure under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 required pre-existing material giving the officer reason to believe that the Act had been, was being, or was about to be contravened. On the record, no concrete basis for that belief was shown; mere suspicion from association with jewellers, a blank voucher, or locker keys was insufficient, and the statutory condition could not be justified after the event. The seizure was therefore without jurisdiction and the ornaments had to be returned. The existence of appeal and revision under the Act did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge was to action taken wholly without authority, so the writ petition was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the search and seizure of gold ornaments under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was valid in the absence of material showing a reasonable belief that the Act had been, was being, or was about to be contravened; (ii) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the search and seizure of gold ornaments under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was valid in the absence of material showing a reasonable belief that the Act had been, was being, or was about to be contravened.

Analysis: The power of seizure under Section 66 is conditioned upon the Gold Control Officer having reason to believe, on the basis of some material, that a contravention of the Act has occurred, is occurring, or is attempted. The record did not disclose any concrete material indicating a violation; the Department's stand was that the legality of seizure and the existence of reasonable belief would itself be determined after enquiry. That approach was impermissible, because the statutory condition had to exist before seizure, not be manufactured afterwards. Mere suspicion arising from association with jewellers or from recovery of a blank voucher and locker keys was insufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The seizure was without jurisdiction and the petitioners were entitled to return of the ornaments.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The existence of appeal and revision under the Act did not oust writ jurisdiction where the challenge was to action taken wholly without jurisdiction. In such a case, insistence on exhausting alternative remedies would not be proper, because the grievance went to the very authority to seize the ornaments under the statute.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy objection failed and the writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Court interfered in writ jurisdiction, held the seizure invalid for want of the statutory precondition, and directed release of the seized ornaments to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power of search and seizure conditioned on "reason to believe" can be exercised only on pre-existing material showing a prima facie contravention, and not as a post hoc justification after seizure.

---