Auction sale terms control delivery of goods; unstated exclusions cannot justify later seizure or withholding under customs powers.

A public auction conducted under customs sanction must be read according to the auction list and special conditions, and any exclusions must be confined to those expressly recorded. On that basis, the later refusal to deliver the remaining goods and their seizure as "prime quality" goods were unsupported by the original sale terms. The text also notes that a writ petition may be maintained under Article 226 despite an alternative remedy where unauthorised action by public authorities is alleged, and that disputed factual questions can still be decided on affidavits when the controversy turns mainly on official records and no cross-examination is sought.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the auction of the two lots comprised all goods in those lots except the items expressly excluded by the special conditions, so that the later refusal to deliver the balance and the seizure of goods as "prime quality" goods was lawful; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable and could be decided on affidavits despite the existence of disputed questions of fact.

Issue (i): Whether the auction of the two lots comprised all goods in those lots except the items expressly excluded by the special conditions, so that the later refusal to deliver the balance and the seizure of goods as "prime quality" goods was lawful.

Analysis: The sanction granted by the customs authorities referred to the goods described in the sale list as unconnected cargo and scrap in the two lots, and nowhere expressly excluded any additional class of goods beyond the stated special conditions. The auction list, the special conditions, and the conduct of the customs officers at the time of delivery showed that the lots were sold as described, subject only to the enumerated exclusions. The expressions "scrap" and "prime quality goods" were not treated as limiting terms capable of cutting down the sale to some unidentified commercial subset. The subsequent seizure under the customs power was therefore unsupported by the original sanction for sale.

Conclusion: The sale covered the lots as offered, excluding only the expressly listed items, and the refusal to deliver the balance and the seizure of the goods were unlawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable and could be decided on affidavits despite the existence of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy did not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly where the challenged action of public authorities was alleged to be unauthorised. The dispute turned mainly on the interpretation of the official records and the auction conditions, and the parties did not seek cross-examination of deponents or a viva voce trial before the learned Judge. In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in proceeding on affidavits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and was properly decided on affidavits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the auction sale was held to include the disputed goods except for the express exclusions, and the High Court's writ relief directing delivery of the remaining goods was upheld with clarifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public authority sanctions and conducts a sale by auction in general terms, the sale must be given effect according to the expressed terms of the auction and any exclusions specifically recorded, and an unexplained later attempt to narrow the sale by reference to an unstated class of goods cannot justify withholding delivery or seizing the goods.

---