Subbarao, C.J.-These are appeals against the order of Satyanarayana Raju, J., in a batch of writ petitions refusing to quash the proceedings of the Government of Andhra, wherein they directed the railway authorities and the Station-master Hindupur Railway Station not to deliver to the appellants the goods consigned under different railway receipts and to issue writs of mandamus to the General Manager, Southern Railway, and the Station-master, Hindupur, to deliver the goods to the appellants. The facts that gave rise to the proceedings have been succinctly stated by the learned Judge and they are: Several consignments of rice and paddy, in all about 6419 bags, were despatched in about 55 wagons from the railway stations of Tadeppalligudem, Guntur, Battirpole, Kollur Road, Repalle, Nidubrole, Bezwada and Narasapur to the Hindupur Railway Station, in Anantapur District between the 28th January, 1954 and the 7th February, 1954. All the consignments were received at the Hindupur railway station between the 13th and the 15th of February, 1954. The consignors in all the cases were several rice mills in the Districts of Guntur, Krishna and West Godavari. The appellants were licencees under the Foodgrains (Licensing and Procurement) Order, 1952. They received orders from merchants in Hindupur for the supply of rice and paddy, and under their instructions and advice, the mills consigned the rice and paddy at the respective stations for despatch to Hindupur. The Collector of Anantapur issued an order to the Station Master, Hindupur, not to deliver the rice bags, etc., received at Hindupur to the parties concerned. The Station Master, Hindupur, refused to deliver the consignments as he was directed by the Tahsildar, Hindupur, not to deliver the goods. The Tahsildar, Hindupur, issued registered notice to the consignors asking them to produce the permits authorising them to transport the rice but no permits were produced. The Tahsildar, Hindupur, seized the consignments of rice and paddy which were lying at the destination. The appellants filed writs in the High Court for the aforesaid reliefs. They were dismissed by the learned Judge. Hence the appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants raise the same contentions, which he has unsuccessfully pressed before the learned Judge. It is not necessary to consider all the points as, in view of the supervening circumstances, the appeals could be disposed of on a short point. They were dismissed by the learned Judge. Hence the appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants raise the same contentions, which he has unsuccessfully pressed before the learned Judge. It is not necessary to consider all the points as, in view of the supervening circumstances, the appeals could be disposed of on a short point. It is contended that all the millers were acquitted in the criminal cases filed against them and, therefore, the seizure of the goods made for the purpose of forefeiture was invalid. The facts necessary for this contention are: Pursuant to the power delegated by the Central Government to the State Government, the Government of Andhra made the following Order on 27th January, 1954. “(1) No person shall with effect on and from the date of publication of this order, transport the commodities specified in column 3 of Schedule I by road, rail, river, canal or sea from any place specified in the corresponding entry in column 1 of the said Schedule to the taluks specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 thereof or transport the aforesaid commodities from one village to’ another within the taluks specified in column 2 of the aforesaid schedule except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued either (a) by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra State or (b) by the Collector of the district concerned, or (c) by any officer not below the rank of Revenue Inspector, authorised by the Collector of the District in this behalf. (2) Any police officer not below the rank of Head constable or any Revenue Officer not below the rank of Revenue Inspector may within his jurisdiction search or cause to be searched any vehicle or other conveyance on road, tracts, rail, river or canal within the area specified in column 2 of Schedule I or enter upon and inspect any premises in which he has reason to believe that the commodities specified in column 3 of Schedule I are stored by a person other than a bona fide trader and seize the articles in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of this order has been committed. * * * * * * (6) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this order, then, without prejudice to any other punishment to which he may be liable, any Court trying such contravention -nay direct that the packages, coverings, or receptacles in which the stocks of the commodities specified in clause 3 of Schedule I are found and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other Conveyance used in carrying of such stocks shall be forfeited to the State Government”. On 16th February, 1954, the Collector made an order directing the seizure of the consignments. The actual seizure was made by the Tahsildar between 28th February, 1954 and 2nd March, 1954. On 23rd February, 1954, the Governor of Andhra rescinded the orders, dated 27th January, 1954, and 28th January, 1954, relating to the imposition of belt area restrictions regarding the smuggling of paddy and rice outside the Andhra State. The millers were prosecuted for having contravened the provisions of the aforesaid Government order but this High Court quashed the prosecutions on the ground that they had no knowledge of the restrictions imposed upon the transport of goods. The appellants, on the production of the railway receipts and invoices paid up the bills including the entire price and expenses of loading and took delivery of the same. They were bona fide purchasers of the goods for value from the millers. Pending the writs, the High Court directed delivery of the goods to the appellants subject to certain conditions and it is not contended that the appellants did not carry out the terms of the order. In the circumstances, the learned counsel argues, that as the convictions were quashed, the Government has no longer any right to the goods seized. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that the goods were seized not for the purpose of forfeiture alone but also for regulating their distribution without offending the Government orders relating to the imposition of belt area restrictions. The Government order, dated 27th January, 1954, extracted above did not confer on the authorities concerned any power to regulate the distribution of the goods seized. The Government order, dated 27th January, 1954, extracted above did not confer on the authorities concerned any power to regulate the distribution of the goods seized. Clause 5 of the order authorised any Police Officer not below the rank of a Head Constable and a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Revenue Inspector to enter upon and inspect any premises in which he had reason to believe that the commodities specified in that order were stored by a person other than a bona fide trader and seize the articles in respect of which he had reason to believe that contravention of the order had been committed. Clause 6 authorised any Court trying a person for the contravention of the order to direct the forfeiture of the goods to the State Government. The juxtaposition of the two clauses, one empowering the seizure and the other prescribing for their forfeiture, and the absence of any indication in the order of any other purpose for which the seizure of the goods is authorised leave no doubt in our mind that the sole object of the seizure of the goods is only to enable the Court to direct their forfeiture. To illustrate: If the appellants were prosecuted and convicted for the contravention of the provisions of the order, Court could also direct the forfeiture of the goods seized to the State Government. If, in such a prosecution, the appellants were acquitted, the Court obviously could not have forfeited the goods for the simple reason that the appellants had not contravened any of the provisions of the order. The same result should flow as the only persons prosecuted for the contravention of the order, i.e., the millers were acquitted and the goods should be handed over to their owners. In this case, the goods were delivered to the appellants by the orders of the High Court though subject to certain conditions. Now that the millers are acquitted, it must be held that they did not contravene any of the provisions of the order, and therefore the seizure on the basis of the contravention was not valid. We, therefore, quash the order of seizures and cancel the bonds executed by the appellants. In the result, all the appeals are allowed but in the circumstances without costs. S.C.V. ----- All Appeals allowed.