ORDER R. GURURAJAN, J. - This petition is filed seeking for the following prayers : (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the fourth respondent to release the ten bags of supari unloaded by him on September 12, 1995 as per the penalty order bearing No. B-40079 vide annexure A; or in the alternative; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the fifth respondent to pay the present market value of the ten bags of the supari along with interest; (iii) grant such other reliefs this honourable court deems fit in the circumstances of this case including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity. Petitioner is registered transport contractor and commission agent and it undertakes transportation of goods from Mangalore to various destination in India. M/s. Gulmarg Agencies, Attavar, Mangalore, on September 7, 1995 booked 138 bags of areca-nuts for transporting the same to Junagadh in the State of Gujarat. The consignor tendered all the valid documents including the bill of sale, delivery note in form 39, etc., at the time of booking. The petitioner dispatched the said areca-nuts in a goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA. 19/6849 on September 7, 1995 itself along with another consignment of 50 bundles of coir yarn with the requisite documents. The vehicle was checked on September 8, 1995 at about 7.00 a.m. by the fifth respondent. The driver-in-charge of the vehicle tendered duplicate copy of delivery note and also the sale bill. The fifth respondent rejected them and issued show cause notice under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. He proposed to levy penalty of Rs. 58,125. The proposed penalty was confirmed by the fifth respondent in terms of an order dated September 12, 1995 as at annexure "A". In the light of penalty, the fifth respondent detained ten bags of supari valued at Rs. 60,000 as security to the penalty on September 12, 1995. Aggrieved by the order of the fifth respondent, petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent under section 20(5) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The said appeal was subsequently allowed in favour of the petitioner. 60,000 as security to the penalty on September 12, 1995. Aggrieved by the order of the fifth respondent, petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent under section 20(5) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The said appeal was subsequently allowed in favour of the petitioner. The appellate authority struck down the order passed by the fifth respondent under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and also directed the fifth respondent to refund the penalty collected from the petitioner. The third respondent failed to make any order with regard to the detention of ten bags of supari. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 335 of 1996 with regard to ten bags of supari. The Tribunal in terms of an order dated October 20, 1997 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. But however observed that, since the penalty imposed has been set aside, the concerned parties are entitled for all consequential reliefs and further observed that, it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for the release of ten bags of supari which was unloaded for the security of due payment of penalty amount in pursuance of the impugned order of the fifth respondent. In the light of the order of the Tribunal, petitioner made a letter to fourth and fifth respondents to release ten bags of supari in terms of representation dated April 30, 1998 as at annexure C. An endorsement has been issued in terms of annexure D. Subsequent representation was made in terms of annexure E. In the absence of any relief, petitioner is before me. The respondents have entered appearance and filed a detailed statement in support of their case. They say that they are not liable to refund the amount. This court directed the Joint Commissioner to produce the original records and thereafter this court deem it proper to record evidence in the light of the denial by the State. The matter is taken up today for final disposal. Sri Guru Prasad, learned counsel reiterates the facts and grounds in support of his prayers. The learned Government Advocate Sri Sanjeev would say that the goods have not been factually detained by the authority and that therefore the question of refund does not arise. After hearing the counsel, I perused the material placed on record. Sri Guru Prasad, learned counsel reiterates the facts and grounds in support of his prayers. The learned Government Advocate Sri Sanjeev would say that the goods have not been factually detained by the authority and that therefore the question of refund does not arise. After hearing the counsel, I perused the material placed on record. Admittedly, the facts reveal that there is a factual finding against the State in the earlier proceedings. Petitioner has repeatedly stated with regard to unloading of ten bags of supari in terms of the material available on record. The material placed before this court also supports the facts that the respondents have not chosen to challenge the earlier finding in the earlier order in the case on hand. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is making a false claim as sought to be made out by the respondents. The various letters filed along with the petition would evidence the factum of unloading of ten bags of supari as rightly contended by the petitioner. Those ten bags have not been returned to the petitioner. The Tribunal on the facts of the case has rightly observed that it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy with regard to ten bags of supari in his order. The petitioner in the light of the order by the Tribunal has chosen to make several representations and those representations have been rejected. At this stage it is not possible for the State to return ten bags of supari. On the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it proper to issue a direction to the State Government to refund the value of the amount of ten bags of supari within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order taking into consideration the price prevailing on the date of unloading. The State Government is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards interest and costs. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Sri B. L. Sanjeev, learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.