SANDEEP BABULAL PUROHIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard both sides. On 15th Feb., 2016, a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party, had passed an order directing the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs to provisionally release the goods/consignments. He was directed to make an appropriate order in that behalf after hearing the petitioner. As set out in the civil application, the event subsequent to this Court's order would disclose that though the petitioner appeared before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs, in the absence, according to him, of any authority to adjudicate or pass a provisional order of release of goods, some communication was addressed by the Additional Commissioner. Mr. Kantawala has invited our attention to the notes of personal hearing, copy of which is at Annexure-C pages 9 and 10 of the civil application and the communication dated 19th Feb., 2016, to the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) M & P Wing, Mumbai.

(2.) Mr. Kantawala would submit that there is a complete breach and violation of this Court's order and direction. It is a mockery that instead of passing an order pursuant to the appearance of the petitioner, the Principal Chief Commissioner has allowed somebody who not of the same rank, but in the department to address such communications and pre-judge the issue. If indeed the signatory to the letter dated 19th Feb., 2016, was a competent authority or official, then, the Commissioner should not have in the first instance, conducted a hearing and secondly made over the file to this Additional Commissioner. This clearly means that the issue is pre-judged and now there is no hope of any fair and reasonable treatment, leave alone justice. This Court, therefore, must take a strong view of the proceedings and the infraction of its order.

(3.) Mr. Kantawala also relies upon the affidavit-in-reply now filed and by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs disclosing the entire stand and on merits. Mr. Kantawala, therefore, submits that in the light of the affidavit-in-reply affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) no useful purpose will be served by any appearance before any of the officials in the department.