JUDGMENT : 1. There was an allegation of illegal mining against various miners including this writ petitioner. 2. A criminal case was registered and in consequence thereof, huge quantities of iron ore were seized in the port area. The said materials were kept by the State. 3. A proceeding was initiated under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the learned Special Judge of Central Bureau of Investigation Court ('the learned CBI Judge,' in short). By the impugned order, the learned CBI judge directed disposal of the seized stock of iron ore in a particular manner. 4. Mr.K.N.Phanindra, learned advocate, in support of the writ petition, submits that the learned CBI judge was wrong, inasmuch as the case against the petitioner has, since, been closed. 5. The Supreme Court of India, by an order dated September 7, 2012, directed the CBI to investigate into the illegal extraction and export of the said iron ore to other countries, and, also, to institute cases, immediately. 6. By a subsequent order dated September 16, 2013, the Supreme Court of India, referring to the recommendations of the Central Empowerment Committee in its report dated September 5, 2012, permitted the CBI to refer the matter to the State Government, and, simultaneously, directed the State Government to take further necessary action under the relevant laws, in cases where the exporters had exported less than 50,000 metric tonnes without valid permits. 7. Admittedly, in the case of the writ petitioner, the iron ore was only 34,000 metric tonnes. Under the order of the Supreme Court of India, the investigation was required to be done by an agency to be appointed by the State. 8. Accordingly, a Special Investigation Team (SIT, for short) was appointed by the State. They submitted a final report, which is in favour of the writ petitioner. The final report has been accepted by the learned CBI judge by an order dated December 15, 2015. 9. Mr.K.N.Phanindra, learned advocate, seeks a direction for release of the materials in favour of his client. 10. Mr.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned additional government advocate, submits that a case of theft is pending and, therefore, the seized materials could not be released in favour of the petitioner. 11. In the wake of the final report being submitted by the SIT, we do not find any impediment to release the iron ore in favour of the petitioner. 10. Mr.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned additional government advocate, submits that a case of theft is pending and, therefore, the seized materials could not be released in favour of the petitioner. 11. In the wake of the final report being submitted by the SIT, we do not find any impediment to release the iron ore in favour of the petitioner. An inventory has to be prepared and, thereafter, the iron ore shall be released in favour of the writ petitioner, immediately. The entire process must be completed by four weeks. 12. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. 13. Mr.Phanindra, at this stage, expresses an apprehension that the authorities may claim royalty. 14. When the material is in the port area, it is presumed that royalty has, already, been paid, otherwise transport permit would not have been granted. Therefore, his apprehension is unfounded. 15. We make no order as to costs.