JUDGMENT V.S. Malimath, C.J. 1. These appeals are by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Special Secretary to the Government of India and the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, the gold control Administrator of gold control appeals and the Special Secretary to the Government of India, respectively challenging the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 3055 of 1978 and 493 of 1979 respectively. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these two appeals may briefly be stated as follows: At about 1.30 a. m. on 9th July, 1970 two persons, namely, Mohammedkutty and Saidali, came to Calicut from Kasaragod. On suspicion, their persons were searched, whereupon it was found that they were carrying in a concealed manner 100 and 98 slabs of gold, on their respective persons. The total weight of the gold thus carried by the two persons was of the order of 93,092 grams of 99.9 per cent purity. The gold was seized and ultimately proceedings were taken against them both under the custom Act and the Gold (Control) Act. The gold seized was confiscated. The authorities under the Gold (Control) Act, proceeded against the respondent Rajagopala Prabhu, one Vasudeva Mallar and Mohammedkutty and Saidali, as also against Syed Mohammed Bafaky Thangal. The said proceedings ended in imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the respondent under section 112 (d) of the Customs Act. The order was passed on 6th April, 1971. Sri Syed Mohammed Bafaky Thangal was exonerated giving the benefit of doubt. Others were imposed with different penalties, which it is unnecessary to advert here. The said order of the Collector of Customs was affirmed in appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs by order dated 31st March 1976 and further by the Central Government by order dated 11th August 1978. So far as the proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act are concerned, they also ended in imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the respondent Rajagopala Prabhu under section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act by order, dated 15th April 1972. Sri Syed Mohammed Bafaky Thangal was exonerated under the Gold (Control) Act also, and others were imposed with different penalties. 50,000 on the respondent Rajagopala Prabhu under section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act by order, dated 15th April 1972. Sri Syed Mohammed Bafaky Thangal was exonerated under the Gold (Control) Act also, and others were imposed with different penalties. The said order stood confirmed on appeal by the Gold (Control) Administrator by order dated 30th April 1976 and by the Central Government by its order dated 30th November 1978 It is in this background that the respondent Sri Rajagopala Prabhu challenged the orders under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, imposing penalties aforesaid in the two Original Petitions. The learned Single Judge by his common judgment dated 25th March 1981 allowed both the Original Petitions, and quashed the impugned orders imposing penalty on the respondent. It was however made clear that the quashing of those orders will not prevent the authorities concerned from proceeding against the respondent and others in accordance with law and conducting further enquiry if the law allows them to conduct such further enquiries. It is the said order that is challenged in these two appeals. 2. Shri P. V. Madhavan Nambiar, the learned Central Government standing Counsel, contended that the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities concerned under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, holding the respondent guilty and levying penalties for contravening the relevant provisions of the respective Acts. The learned Single Judge has interfered in this case, on a thorough examination of all the records that were placed before him during the course of the arguments, and after being satisfied that the enquiry has not been fair and unbiased. The learned Single Judge after considering the first set of statements made by the two carriers of gold, recorded immediately after they were caught redhanded, which contained references to Sri Syed Mohammed Bafaky Thangal as the person who had ordered the gold to be smuggled, has come to the conclusion that the authorities have placed reliance only on the statements of the two carriers by which they retracted from their earlier statements that were given, without giving due weight to what has been stated by them at the earliest stage. The learned Single Judge has felt that no satisfactory probe in the right direction was made giving rise to the impression that the enquiring authorities have confined their investigation not to all persons against whom there was materials, but only against one set of persons ignoring the cases against others. It is this impression that the learned Single Judge gathered regarding the way in which the matter has been dealt with that a finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the enquiry has not been fair and unbiased. Once the learned Single Judge came to that conclusion he had no other alternative but to hold that the proceedings which resulted in imposition of penalties are all vitiated and the orders passed pursuant there to cannot be sustained. 3. On the materials on record it is difficult for us to disagree with the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not recorded any firm finding to the effect that no persons other than, the respondent were guilty of contravention of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act. What has been pointed out by the learned Single Judge is that the first set of statements of the carriers did implicate certain persons, but no satisfactory attempt was made to find out whether they could also be proceeded against. It is this picking and choosing of persons that has been frowned upon by the learned Single Judge. This righteous indignation of the learned Single Judge can be seen throughout the fabric of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. We are inclined to share the concern of the Single Judge and his anxiety to ensure that the public authorities dealt with every one concerned with even handedness. That is the basic requirement of rule of Law and if this basic principle is not borne in mind, it will shatter the confidence of the people in the functioning of the administration. It is with a view to ensure that a fair and equal treatment is accorded to all including those who are delinquents that the learned Single Judge thought it fit to quash the impugned orders reserving liberty to the authorities concerned to enquire into the matter in a satisfactory manner and to arrive at a fresh decision in accordance with Law. That being the position, we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge in the two appeals. 4. For the reasons stated above, both the writ appeals are dismissed. We however make it clear that the quashing of the impugned orders by the learned Single Judge is only in respect of penalties imposed on the respondent Rajagopala Prabhu. The orders levying penalties on others would remain undisturbed by these orders. It is also made clear that the confiscation of gold has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge and remains undisturbed.