( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is presented against the order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition presented by the petitioner in which he had challenged the legality of seizure of certain quantities of gold and also cash belonging to the appellant by the 4th respondent. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief are these.- the appellant is a certified goldsmith and licensed pawn broker and money lender carrying on his business in the city of bellary. On 25th august, 1989 when the appellant was not in station, as he had gone to rajasthan, the 4th respondent conducted a raid and search of the business premises of the appellant. After search the 4th respondent seized gold weighing 569. 900 gms. And also cash of Rs. 77,000/ -. On receiving information, the appellant, who was at Rajasthan rushed back to bellary and made a representation on 30th august, 1989 and requested the 4th respondent to return the gold and cash seized. In his representation, he stated that the entire gold belonged to his various customers and the same had been accounted for by him in gs 13 register and the cash of Rs. 77,000/- also had been accounted for in the day book of the appellant and therefore there was no justification for seizing the gold and cash. Therefore, in the writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the 4th respondent to return the gold and cash seized from the appellant. ( 3 ) THE learned single judge on a detailed consideration of the contentions urged by the appellant, held that the writ forum was not an appropriate forum for deciding the various questions raised by the appellant and all those points were required to be urged before the appropriate statutory authorities and it was only when the final order of the authorities went against the appellant, he had to approach this court. The learned judge also held that it was not made out that the 4th respondent had no competence to seize the gold and cash on 25-8-1989 and the 4th respondent had also pointed out to the materials which were requisite for the formation of the belief as required under Section 66 of the gold control act. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has presented this writ appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has presented this writ appeal. ( 4 ) SRI k. s. ramabhadran, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the condition precedent for the exercise of power under Section 66 of the act was that the 4th respondent must have had reasons to believe that any of the Provisions of the act had been or attempted to be contravened and without such belief recorded on the basis of cogent material the 4th respondent could not have seized the gold and consequently a direction has to be issued to the 4th respondent to return the gold. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Collector, Central Excise v L. K. N. Jewellers, AIR 1972 all. 231 and of the Patna high court in Bawa Gopal Das Bedi and Sons v Union of India, AIR 1982 Patna 152. Learned counsel submitted in these decisions searches were found illegal and directions were issued to return the seized articles. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that if Section 66 of the act required the recording of reasons in writing before exercising power of search and seizure there would have been some force in the contention of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that all that was necessary for the exercise of the power under Section 66 of the act was that the 4th respondent should have had reasons to believe that any provision of the act had been violated by the person concerned. In support of this submission he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 1985 SC 989 at 993 para 12, in which Section 37 of the foreign exchange Regulation Act was interpreted, and submitted that recording of belief in writing was not a condition incorporated in Section 66 of the act. He also submitted that all the grounds available for taking action have been set out in the show cause notice issued to the appellant, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-H along with the i. a. the show cause notice is dated 14th february, 1990, prepared during the pendency of the writ petition and has been served subsequently on the appellant. The relevant portion of the show cause notice reads:-"whereas it appears that the above said Sri md. The relevant portion of the show cause notice reads:-"whereas it appears that the above said Sri md. Yunus alias yusuf s/o abdul gaffar of bellary and s. l. vasanthkumar, goldsmith of bellary have contravened the Provisions of sections 8 (l) (i) and 27 of the gold control Act, 1968, inasmuch as they owned or had in their possession, custody or control primary gold weighing totally 569. 900 gms. And were engaged in business in gold without obtaining a valid gold dealers licence issued by competent authority, as evidenced by seizure of two primary gold rods/pieces totally weighing 569. 900 gms. Valued Rs. 1,83,500/- and cash worth Rs. 77,000/- from the business premises of Sri s. l. vasanthakumar vide panchanama dated 25-8-89 and statement dated 25-8-89 of Sri md. Yunus alias yusuf of bellary (details as per Annexure enclosed ). 2. Now, therefore, the said Sri md. Yunus alias yusuf and Sri s. l. vasanthkumar are hereby required to show cause to the collector of central excise, 71, club road, belgaum as to; (i) why the two primary gold pieces under seizure totally weighing 569. 900 gms. Should not be confiscated under Section 71 (1) of the gold control Act, 1968, and (ii) why penalty should not be imposed on them under sections 74 and 75 of the act ibid. 3. Sri md. Yunus alias yusuf and s. l vasanthkumar are further directed to produce at the time of showing cause all the evidence upon which they intend to rely in support of their defence. 4. They should also state in their written explanation as to whether they desire to be heard in person before the case is adjudicated failing which it will be presumed that they do not desire any personal hearing. 5. If no cause is shown against the action proposed herein above within thirty days on receipt of this notice, or if they do not appear before the adjudicating authority when the case is posted for personal hearing, the case will be decided ex-parte. 5. If no cause is shown against the action proposed herein above within thirty days on receipt of this notice, or if they do not appear before the adjudicating authority when the case is posted for personal hearing, the case will be decided ex-parte. " ( 6 ) IN our opinion, as the 4th respondent was the competent officer for exercising power under Section 66 of the act and as he has asserted that he had reasons to believe that in respect of the gold in question that there had been contravention of the Provisions of the Act, it is difficult to accede to the contention of the appellant that we should interfere at this stage itself and direct the 4th respondent to return the gold seized. As can be seen from the show cause notice, the 4th respondent has specified the Provisions of the Act, which according to him has been contravened. If according to the appellant no Provisions of the act has been contravened, he is at liberty to urge all the grounds and the 4th respondent is bound to consider all of them and arrive at an appropriate decision. But, in our opinion, it is not proper for this court to prevent the 4th respondent from proceeding further with the show cause notice and to direct the 4th respondent to return the gold and drop further proceedings. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the seizure of cash of Rs. 77,000/- is concerned, on the last occasion we had asked the learned central government standing counsel to state under what authority the said amount has been seized and further we also pointed out that in the show cause notice there was no reference to the action proposed to be taken in respect of the amount of Rs. 77,000/" seized from the appellant's business premises. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the authorities have not proposed to take any action regarding the seized amount of Rs. 77,000/- under any of the Provisions of the act or under the Provisions of any other law and therefore they would be returning the said amount to the appellant. 77,000/" seized from the appellant's business premises. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the authorities have not proposed to take any action regarding the seized amount of Rs. 77,000/- under any of the Provisions of the act or under the Provisions of any other law and therefore they would be returning the said amount to the appellant. In our opinion, as about an year has elapsed from the date of seizure of the amount and as a result the appellant was deprived of the amount for carrying on his business and the seizure of it is not sought to be sustained under any Provisions of law, the appellant is not only entitled to an order of refund of the said cash amount of Rs. 77,000/- but he is also entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said amount. ( 8 ) IN the result, we make the following order: (I) the writ appeal is partly allowed: (ii) a direction shall issue to the 4th respondent to return the cash of Rs. 77,000/- seized from the business premises of the appellant together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum calculating it from the date of seizure upto the date of payment; (iii) in other respects, the writ appeal stands dismissed, leaving all the contentions open including the question that there were discrepancies in some of the questions put to the appellant by the 4th respondent, as pointed out in the order of the learned single judge and leaving liberty to the appellant to urge all the objections available to him in law in reply to the show cause notice. Order on the oral application made under article 134-a of the Constitution of India for grant of certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court after we pronounced the Order, the learned counsel for the appellant made an oral application under article 134-a of the Constitution of India praying for grant of certificate of fitness to appeal to hon'ble the Supreme Court of india under article 133 of the constitution. In our opinion, our judgment does not involve any substantial question of law of general importance which is required to be decided by the Supreme Court. The application is therefore rejected. Writ appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .