ASHOK DHAWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two interesting questions arise in this writ petition : (i) Can the International Airports Authority of India, respondent No 6 charge the petitioner demurrage on baggage, which is kept in its custody by the Customs Authority, who erroneously did not permit the petitioner owner to take it away without payment of duty? And if demurrage is chargeable, then did the Chairman of respondent No. 6, in the facts and circumstances of the case, apply his mind properly in not waiving the said charges wholly ? (ii) If one of the three packets containing the petitioner's computer (which was admittedly in the custody of the International Airports Authority of India, respondent No 6) is misplaced, can a mandamus issue directing respondent No. 6 and/or respondent 4 and 5 (the Customs Authorities) to trace the missing packet within a specified period and release/deliver it to the petitioner, failing which give the petitioner equivalent compatible items as contained therein and/or money to purchase the same, in the peculiar facts of this case ?

(2.) The basic facts in the case are admitted. The petitioner an Indian citizen, is a qualified architect. He studied and Worked abroad for a number of years and returned to India on 21st March, 1986 on a transfer of residence intending to permanently settle here. On arrival at Palam Airport, Delhi, be claimed and was granted the benefits of Transfer of Residence under the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Residence Rules.) Subsequently, certain other personal and household effects belonging to the petitioner arrived in Delhi and on 20th August, 1986 he again claimed and was allowed the benefit under Rule 2 of the Transfer Rules.

(3.) Before returning to India, the petitioner had purchased a personal computer on 25th August. 1985. The said computer arrived at Palam Airport in three packets on 19th July, 1986. The petitioner was informed about the arrival of the computer on 21st July. 1986. On 29th July 1986 the petitioner claimed transfer of residence benefit under Rule 4 of the Residence Rules in respect of the personal computer being a professional equipment, and filed a baggage declaration form. On 25th July, 1986 when the petitioner filed the said form, the three packets containing the said computer were brought, by an official of respondent No. 6, to the Superintendent, Air Customs for examination. The examination took place in the presence of the petitioner, but the Superintendent did not permit the petitioner to clear the same without payment of duty. On 28th July, 1986 the three packets were again examined by the Assistant Collector, Air Customs, but he also did not allow their clearence without payment of duty. Consequently. the said computer contained in three packets was detained/retained by the Customs Authorities,