M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition coming up for preliminary hearing in 'b' Group, after notice to respondent, is taken up for final disposal by consent of Counsel for parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a pawn-broker by profession. On 1-12-1972 gold ornaments weighing 1825. 500 grams were seized from his business premises. The respondent-Collector of Central Excise, bangalore, passed an order adjudicating in case No. XVIII8/36/72, confiscating the entire ornaments and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner under the provisions of the gold (Control) Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Gold Control administrator, New Delhi, and the appellate authority by his order dated 19-4-1979 set aside the order of confiscation as well as the penalty wholly, absolving the petitioner of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. On 31-5-1979 the petitioner through his counsel addressed a letter to the respondent-Collector of Central Excise. Bangalore, to return the ornaments seized pursuant to the appellate order. Since the same was not returned, he filed this writ petition under Art. 226 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution seeking for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to return the confiscated ornaments: which were seized as earlier stated on 1-12-1972. The respondent has been represented by the Senior central Government Standing Counsel shri U. L. Narayana Rao. ( 3 ) THE facts are not disputed. The learned counsel for the respondent concedes that there is an order in favour of the petitioner by the Gold Control administrator. He, however, strongly urges that this Court should not interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution, at this stage, because a decision has been taken by the respondent to prefer and prosecute a revision petition before the Central Government under Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 82 of the Act. Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 82 of the Act reads as follows: 'the Central Government may, on its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which any decision or order has been made on appeal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order and may pass such order thereon as it may think fit. Sub-Sec. (3) of S. 82 of the Act also reads as follows:"no decision or order shall be varied under this section so as to prejudicially affect any person unless such person, (a) has, within a period of one year from the date of such decision or order received a notice to show cause why such decision or order shall not be varied, and (b) has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation and if he so desires, of being heard, in his defence. "it is further stated that steps have been taken by the respondent to bring to the notice of Central Government the appellate order of the Gold Control administrator for such action as the government may take with a prayer to stay the operation of the appellate order passed by the Administrator. This has been done after notice of this petition was served on the respondent. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the respondent has given a number of reasons why the decision was taken late. It is not necessary to examine those reasons. ( 4 ) THE short question that calls for determination in this writ petition is: whether the petitioner is entitled to return of the ornaments ordered to be confiscated by the respondent immediately after an order was made in his favour by the appellate authority? if the answer is in the affirmative, then a duty is cast upon the respondent to return the ornaments in obedience to the appellate order. That the respondent has intention or in fact has exercised his discretion to prosecute the revision petition before the Central govt. under Sec. 82 of the Act, as aforementioned is immaterial so long as the same has not been stayed by the central Government by virtue of any power conferredl on it under Sec. 32 of the Act. If he is not entitled to keep back the ornaments under law, he is bound to return it to the owner. The learned Senior Central Government standing Counsel has further contended that in view of Sec. 84 of the Act, the appellate order of the gold Control Administrator has not reached finality. This, having regard to the language of Sec. 84 of the Act, is ex facie untenable. All that Sec. 81 of the Act states is that all. The learned Senior Central Government standing Counsel has further contended that in view of Sec. 84 of the Act, the appellate order of the gold Control Administrator has not reached finality. This, having regard to the language of Sec. 84 of the Act, is ex facie untenable. All that Sec. 81 of the Act states is that all. orders passed by the various authorities under the Act attain finality on the passing of the order unless the same has been set aside by an appellate or revisional authority or the High Court. This is not the same as has been contended for the respondent that the appellate order can be said to be inoperative till the respondent has approached the revisional authority for appropriate relief against the apellate order. If the respondent did not obtain the necessary relief in the hands of the revisional authority before the demand was made by the petitioner and before he approached this Court for relief, this Court cannot deny the petitioner the mandamus which he has sought. ( 5 ) FOR the above reasons, a writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the respondent directing him to handover the ornaments that were seized on 1-12-1972 from his business premises by his order dated 8-11-1976 within two days from the date of receipt of this order. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's Fee is Rs. 250/ -. --- *** --- .