ANILBHAI HASMUKHBHAI SONI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner informed that the petitioner No. 1 has expired. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to delete the name of petitioner No. 1 and hereinafter show only petitioner No. 2 as the petitioner. It is an accepted fact that original petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1 and hence, the Court has proceeded to hear the petition finally.

(2.) This petition has been preferred praying for following reliefs:

(3.) Though the petitioners have sought various directions in relation to the Order in Original and its legality as well as return of the gold recovered from the premises of the petitioners on 16th February 1985, for the reasons that follow hereinafter, the Court does not intend to enter into any discussion on merits of the controversy.