MOHANLAL T RATHOD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was in prison being a detenu under Section 3(1)(iii) of the CAFEPOSA Act, 1974 during the period 15 -10 -1986 and 14 -10 -1987. During this period he was served with the notice, regarding certain proceedings to confiscate gold and levy penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act and Gold Control Act. The petitioner did not send any reply; his counsel wrote a letter to the Collector stating that the petitioner was in prison and the proceedings may be postponed till he is released from detention. It was also stated in the letter that the petitioner desires to cross -examine the panchas and other officers etc. This letter was written on 13 -4 -1987. However, the Collector made on order on 11 -6 -1987 wherein he states that in spite of service of notice the petitioner did not send any reply, but his counsel sent a letter seeking adjournment. An observation was made in the order that the reply of the counsel was not accompanied with Vakalatnama. I may point out here itself that for issuance to reply normally Vakalatnama need not be enclosed.

(2.) ULTIMATELY , the gold in question was confiscated and certain penalties were imposed.

(3.) HAVING regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed. The order of the Collector of Customs is partially set aside, to the extent it levies penalties on the petitioner. The proceedings shall be continued after giving the petitioner adequate opportunity to participate in the same. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be either personally present or his counsel be present before the Collector of Customs on 10 -1 -1991 to take note of further proceedings. Collector need not send a separate notice to the petitioner in view of the above direction.