Disputed factual issues barred writ review, but conditional release of seized goods and vehicle was granted on compliance.

The Calcutta HC noted that disputed questions of fact concerning the existence of the consignor and consignee and ownership of the seized goods were unsuitable for writ adjudication, so the statutory appellate forum was the proper remedy. The writ challenge to the adjudication order and detention of goods was therefore not entertained on merits. Limited interim relief was nevertheless granted for release of the goods and vehicle, subject to the petitioner making part payment in cash and furnishing a bank guarantee for the balance penalty. The connected writ petition was not pursued further.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the adjudication order and detention of goods could be entertained despite disputed questions of fact, and whether limited interim relief for release of the goods could be granted subject to conditions.

Analysis: The controversy turned on factual disputes regarding the existence of the consignor and consignee and the ownership of the seized goods. Such disputed factual issues were treated as unsuitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction, and the statutory appellate forum was identified as the proper remedy. On the petitioner's offer to make part payment in cash and furnish a bank guarantee for the balance penalty, limited relief for release of the goods and vehicle was made conditional upon compliance. The connected writ petition was not pursued further.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained on merits in view of the disputed questions of fact and the availability of an appellate remedy, but conditional relief for release of the goods and vehicle was granted on compliance with the stated terms.

---