Judgment 1. As common question of laws and facts are involved in all these Criminal Writ applications they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the parties. 2. In these writ applications prayer has been made to direct the Respondents to release either the "seized goods or its assessed value at the time of seizure with interest. The facts which are not in controversy may be stated. 3. The petitioner no. 1 (In Cr. W.J.C. No. 37/2000) is a partnership firm named as M/s Sharda Plastic Industries. Some polythene bags were seized by the Custom Department on the suspicion that they were of foreign origin. In different seizure of these polythene bags, separate valuation of the seized articles were assessed. Adjudication proceeding was held in which the petitioners filed their show cause. So far the order dated 21.8.1998 passed in Adjudication Order No. 215/98 is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties, confiscated the seized polythene bags which was valued at Rs. 19,200/- and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 500/-. The penalty was deposited by the petitioners but they preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), Customs and Central Excise, Patna giving rise the Appeal No. 130/Pat/Cus/Appeal/99.The appellate authority allowed the appeal and by his order dated 27.8.1999; Inter alia, held that the seizure was illegal. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside. This order is Annexure-1. 4. The petitioners have stated that after the said order of the appellate authority they went on filing applications before the authorities requesting them to release the seized articles but without any effect. Even no information about any auction of those articles was given to the petitioners as required under the law. Having failed in their attempt the petitioners have moved this Court for the aforesaid relief. 5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed in this case but there is no averment as to whether the seized articles have already been auctioned or not. Under these circumstances the point for consideration would be as to whether if those polythene bags have already been auction sold the petitioners are entitled to get the sale amount or the value of those bags which was assessed at the time of seizure. 6. Under these circumstances the point for consideration would be as to whether if those polythene bags have already been auction sold the petitioners are entitled to get the sale amount or the value of those bags which was assessed at the time of seizure. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 7.4.1999 passed in Cr. W.J.C. No. 571 of 1999 (Kailash Rai V/s. The Union of India and Ors.), urged that even where the assesed articles are sold on auction in much lesser amount after setting aside the order of seizure and confiscation by the appropriate authority, the petitioners are entitled to get the amount which was assessed at the time of seizure. 7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the custom authority, submits that when the appellate authority passed the order in favour of the petitioners on 21.8.1999 the petitioners immediately should have approached for release of those articles. 8. In my view, this submission of Mr. Rakesh Kumar is not sustainable. When the authority confiscated the goods the petitioners had no say but when the order went in their favour it was the duty of the authority to return the seized goods to the petitioners forthwith. In the case of Kailash Rai (supra) the similar argument was canvassed on behalf of the authority that the petitioner was entitled to get the sale amount and not the amount which was assessed at the time of seizure. This argument was negatived by his Lordship. 9. In the instant case it is not the case of the Respondents-Authorities that the polythene bags have already been auction sold and, as such, it would be deemed that those polythene bags are still there. Thus the petitioners, in my view are entitled to get the seized articles, namely, the polythene bags or the amount of those articles assessed at the time of seizure along with the amount of Rs. 500/- which was deposited by the petitioners by way of penalty. 10. Almost similar facts and circumstances are in other cases except that at the adjudication stage itself the petitioners got relief from the Assistant Commissioner. 500/- which was deposited by the petitioners by way of penalty. 10. Almost similar facts and circumstances are in other cases except that at the adjudication stage itself the petitioners got relief from the Assistant Commissioner. The order of adjudication Officer is annexure-1 to the writ applications, from perusal of which it will appear that while setting aside the seizure and confiscation proceeding the Assistant Collector, Customs has directed to M/s Sharda Plastic Industries, Raxaul vacating the seizure made under Customs Act, 1962 . In different cases the value of seized articles has been mentioned. 11. Mr. Chakradhari Saran, learned Addl. SCCG appearing on behalf of the authorities , submits that the petitioners have made abnormal delay in approaching this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authority to release either the seized articles or the assessed amount. In my view, this argurnent is not sustainable. When the adjudication Order went in favour of the petitioners some time in 1995 the concerned authority was under obligation to return the seized goods to the petitioner. This has not been done. 12. Moreover, from the order of the Adjudication Officer it appears that till the order was passed those seized polythene bags were not auction sold. There is no averment on behalf of the Custom authority that those seized articles have been sold. Under these circumstances, in my view, relying on the decision in the case of Kailash Rai (supra) learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that this Court can direct the Respondents to return the seized articles or in lieu thereof the amounts for which the articles were seized with interest. 13. Though there is a averment by the petitioners that they were informed by the authority about the auction of the materials and the authority did not inform them about the amount of the sale proceeds but, in my view, this statement cannot be taken to be gospel truth inasmuch as if the petitioners were informed about holding of auction sale they must have obtained some documents from the authority. 14. Be as it may, for the reasons stated above I allow all these writ applications. The Respondent no. 3. 14. Be as it may, for the reasons stated above I allow all these writ applications. The Respondent no. 3. Assistant Commissioner, Customs (Preventive Division) Muzaffarpur is directed to immediately release the seized polythene bags or if they have been auction sold or destroyed, the amount which was assessed in respect of those polythene bags at the time of seizure with interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of quashing of the seizure and confiscation proceeding by the concerned authorities. This order must be complied by the Respondent no. 3 within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.