IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1953 OF 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/11/2001 in WP NO : 6399 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Hyderabad ... APPELLANT AND M/s. Sri Vishnu Merchants, rep., by Sri Rajnish Aggarwal, S/o Sri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, R/o. 16, Jupiter Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad and two others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Satish Kumar Varma for Sri Milind G. Gokhale The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal has been filed against order dated 27-11-2001 in Writ Petition No. 6399 of 2001, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellant and Sri Satish Kumar Varma representing Sri Milind G. Gokhale, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The appellant initiated proceedings against respondent No.1 under the Customs Act, 1962 by seizing licences and freezing the bank account lying with respondent No.2 – Bank, pending conclusion of confiscation proceedings. Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No. 6399 of 2001 questioning the said action. The said writ petition was allowed on various grounds, which may not be germane to be discussed at this stage because the learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that during the pendency of this writ appeal, the appellant has passed a final order for confiscation. Inasmuch as interim measures taken by the appellant pending confiscation were the subject of the writ petition, it is axiomatic that the relief granted in the writ petition is confined only to those measures. As confiscation order has been passed and the proceedings concluded against which respondent No.1 is said to have filed an appeal before the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, the cause in this writ appeal does not survive for consideration. Subject to the above observations, this writ appeal is dismissed as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th September, 2009 ks