WA 360/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY Goel, CJ. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking direction to release 320.065 gm s of gold to the appellant-writ petitioner which was seized from him on 11.02.19 86 by quashing order dated 21.6.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, reje cting the said prayer. Case of the appellant is that Excise officials raided the shop of the appellant and seized gold weighing 6789.710 gms alleging violation of Gold Control Act, 19 68 (the Act). The department initiated proceedings under Section 79 of the Act f or confiscation of the said gold. Final order of confiscation dated 06.11.1986 w as passed confiscating 5674.670 gms. of gold with liberty to the appellant to re deem the same after depositing the fine. The appellant deposited the fine and so ught return of gold. Since the gold was not returned, the appellant approached t his Court by filing Civil Rule No.350 of 1987. By order dated 03.04.1987 this Co urt directed release of gold. Accordingly, on 07.07.1988 gold measuring 6469.645 gms was returned which was short by 320.065 gms from the gold originally seized . Accordingly, the appellant filed a review application which was disposed of on 08.12.1995 with a direction to decide his representation. Since the representat ion of the appellant was not disposed of, the appellant filed WP(C) No.3950 of 1 999. This Court disposed of the same on 06.06.2006 with a direction to pass appr opriate order on the basis of records. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21. 06.2007 was passed to the effect that the gold had already been returned and th e shortage was only notional. Against the said order the appellant filed a fresh writ petition which has been disposed of vide impugned order with the observati on that since as per impugned order entire quantity of gold seized from the appe llant had been released, disputed question raised by the appellant that quantity of gold seized was more could not be gone into by the writ Court. We have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. D. C. Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantity of gold seized was i n excess of the quantity returned and there was deficiency of 320.065 gms. A perusal of the detailed order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventio n) dated 21.6.2007 shows that a clear finding has been recorded that there was n o shortage and the shortage was only notional on account of the fact that weight s had been taken at different times using different weighing-scales and small va riation in each weighment led to the figure of notional shortage or excess. Thus , contention of the appellant that there is shortage in the gold returned to him remains a seriously disputed factual issue. In view of above, we are unable to find any error in the view taken by the learn ed Single Judge that the issue raised is not fit for adjudication by the writ Co urt. No ground is, thus, made out for interference. The appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not be a bar to any other remedy of the ap pellant, in accordance with law.