JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J. -- Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nishant Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The revisionist is a dealer situate at Delhi who had booked goods from Uttarakhand to be taken to Delhi. The truck carrying the goods, which was paper was apprehended at NOIDA and consequently the goods were seized. The reason for seizure is that the transporter had deviated from the route and the papers produced by the driver did not pertain to the consignment that he was carrying. 3. However, while examining the matter, the judicial member has recorded a finding that the consignment was moved within time allowed for exit from the State and also that the papers produced by the dealer were found to be in order and matching the consignment. The departmental member has not agreed and the third member has agreed with the departmental member. However, no finding has been recorded by the third member also that the goods were sought to be unloaded at any point. In the absence of any such finding being recorded that the goods were sought to be sold within the State of U.P. the demand of security of a maximum amount in cash or by bank draft is not justified. No reason has been given for differing with the finding recorded by the judicial member that the dealers papers were in order and matching the consignment. 4. The authorities are, therefore, directed to reduce the security demanded by them by 50% and it may be accepted in the shape of security other than cash or bank guarantee or bank draft subject to the satisfaction of the seizing authority. Upon deposit of such security the goods of the revisionist may be released. Consequential orders with regard to the extension of time for taking the goods outside the State may also be considered by the authorities. 5. With the above observations/directions the revision stands disposed of.