1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated the 12th October 1967, in Writ Petition No. 132 of 1967. By this judgment, the High Court accepted the writ petition of the appellant but imposed certain conditions for the release of the goods to him. It has arisen in the following circumstances :- A raid was conducted on the appellant's shop by the Customs authorities on the 28th March 1967, under the orders of respondent No.1 As a result of search conducted by the respon--dents, the entire quantity of foreign made textile was seized from the appellant's shop and removed to the Customs House, Karachi. The allegation of the appellant is that neither any notice nor statement of reasons for conducting the search and seizure was served on the appellant. It is further alleged by him that no scrutiny was made to find out whether the possession of the appel--lant was lawful and valid. 1n spite of the protest of the appel--lant, the Customs authorities did not stop to interfere with the goods. It may be mentioned that apart from the appellant, at least 30 to 40 other shops in Karachi were also searched by the Customs authorities between 27th March 1967, and a large quantity of foreign made cloth was seized.
2. The appellant challenged this action of the respondents in Constitutional Petition No. 132 of 1967.
3. The other shop-keepers also filed writ petitions against the illegal action of the respon--dents. All the petitions were consolidated and heard by a Division Bench of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, consisting of Farooqi, J. And Anwarul Haq, J. Both the learned Judges, by a common order, after consideration of sections 172-A, 178 and other provisions of Sea Customs Act, came to the conclusion that the search and each seizure of the cloth was, in the circumstances of the case, illegal. There was difference of opinion between the two Judges on the question whether the goods should be restored to the appellant. Anwarul Haq, J. Was of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs to proceed under item 81 of section 167 of the Sea Customs Act is not taken away. He, therefore, dismissed the petition. Farooqi, J. Differed from this view. He held that after holding that the search and seizure was illegal the only course open to them was to return the goods to the appellant on the following conditions :-
(i) That a complete inventory of the goods should be prepared and be signed by both the appellant and the Collector of Customs ;
(ii) that each party shall retain one copy of the inventory ;
(iii) that it will be open to the Collector of Customs to have each of the pieces marked upon in one place by the Customs seal or otherwise so as to ensure its identity ; and
(iv) that each of the goods as may be directed by the Collector of Customs shall not be disposed of within a period of three months.
4. On account of difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, the mattes was referred to a third Judge, Khamisani, J. Khamisani,-J. Agreed with Farooqi, J. That the goods could not be retained after the seizure is held to be illegal. As regards the validity of the conditions laid down by Farooqi, J. He refused to adjudicate upon them stating that this question was not referred to him.
5. The final order in the writ petition was drawn up on the basis of the conditions laid down in the judgment of Farooqi, J. The appellant has challenged these conditions in this appeal before us.
6. Mr. A. K. Brohi, learned counsel for the appellant, has con--tended that the question involved in this matter is concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Yousuf v. Collector of Sea Customs, Karachi etc. (PLD 1969 SC 153). It was held by this Court in that case that there was no warrant in law for the con--ditions imposed by the High Court on the restoration of the goods seized by the Customs authorities on the 27th March 1967, from the appellant.
7. Mr. Shafiq Ahmad; learned Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the respondents, has contended that the appeal has become infructuous as the goods in dispute has been released by the respondents unconditionally, in pursuance of the order of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, in Writ Petition No. 568 of 1957, by judgment dated the 22nd November 1968. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. This writ petition was in respect of the re- seizure of the goods in dispute by the Customs authorities. A Division Bench of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, by the above-mentioned judgment, has held that the re- seizure was illegal and has restored the goods to the appellant. This is a different matter altogether and has nothing to do with the question involved in this matter.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the point involved in this appeal is concluded by the judgment of this Court in PLD 1969 SC 153. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and hold that there was no warrant in law for the conditions imposed by the High Court on the restoration of goods seized by the Customs authorities on the 28th March 1967, from the appellant's shop. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned conditions are set aside. The respondents will bear the costs of this appeal.