Interim writ orders must stay within prima facie limits and give reasons for release conditions imposed on seized goods.

A High Court dealing with an interim writ matter cannot record final findings on the merits of confiscability when only a prima facie examination is required. The order was also vulnerable because it failed to give reasons for imposing release conditions, including an indemnity bond equal to the seizure value and a bank guarantee for 10% of the value of the goods. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters for fresh hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, while dealing with an interim matter, could record final findings on merits regarding liability of goods to confiscation, and whether the order imposing conditions for release lacked supporting reasons.

Analysis: The High Court had gone beyond the scope of an interim writ proceeding by conclusively pronouncing on the merits of confiscability at a stage where only prima facie examination was warranted. The order also did not explain why the stipulated security conditions, namely execution of an indemnity bond equal to the seizure value and furnishing of bank guarantee equivalent to 10% of the value of the goods, were unjustified. Such an approach rendered the order vulnerable.

Conclusion: The impugned High Court orders were set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh hearing.

---