RATAN KARMAKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner has challenged the seizure of three bags of broken brass by the respondent authorities. According to the petitioner he carries on business of manufacturing brass utensils. He had purchased the broken brass from dealers at Malda on 10th Aug., 1992 and on 12th Aug., 1992 booked them on the Railways for Nabadwip Dham. The goods were scheduled to arrive at Nabadwip Dham on 14th Aug., 1992. On that date at 2 O'clock in the morning the respondent authorities seized the three bags after giving a receipt to the Station Master at Nabadwip Dham. the petitioner's complaint is that in spite of repeated requests the respondent authorities were refusing to release the broken brass to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has annexed inter alia copies of the two Railway receipts covering the three bags in question. He has also annexed a letter dated 13.9.92. written by the Station Superintendent, Nabadwip Dham in answer to his letter dated 13.9.92. The Station Superintendent in his letter has said that the three bags which had been booked by the petitioner had been seized by the Preventive Post at Ranaghat who had given a letter to the Station Master at Nabadwip Dham for seizing the consignments as they were suspected of being contraband goods. The letter further records "that the consignment was not opened and checked here but reweighed respectively which recorded in the seized memo and taken away from ASM on duty...............

(3.) The writ application was moved on 6th Jan., 1993. The matter was directed to appear on the next Wednesday marked "For Orders". On 18th Jan., 1993 directions were given for tiling of affidavits The respondent authorities were to file their affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks from date which would mean by 1st Feb. 1993. They did not do so. On 11th Feb., 1993 the matter appeared in the list. Certain samples of what the respondents claim were contained in the three bags were produced The samples which were produced included items such as old buttons and buckles etc. which appeared to have been manufactured outside the country. The petitioner however, disclaimed that the samples bad been taken from his consignments. No affidavit was however, filed by the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities handed over certain documents which showed that in spite of repeated efforts on the part of the respondents' advocate, no instructions had been forthcoming from the respondent authorities. As a last chance time was given to the respondent authorities to file their affidavit-in-opposition by 16th Feb., 1993. The matter was directed to appear in the list on 24th Feb., 1993. The respondents affirmed an affidavit only on 22nd Feb., 1993. No extension had been obtained from this Court and the petitioner rightly refused to accept the copy sought to be served upon him out of time. The matter was drawn to the Court's attention and the petitioner was given the liberty to accept the copy of the affidavit-in-opposition and file his reply without prejudice.