UNION OF INDIA Vs. ABDUL SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application for stay in connection with the above appeal having come up for hearing on contest before us, we have, with the consent of the parties, heard the appeal and the the application together. The appeal has been preferred by the Union of India. The order challenged is one dated December 16, 1983 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court thereby extending an ad interim order of injunction earlier granted on August 26, 1983 until disposal of the writ petition. The ad interim order of injunction , that was so extended was on the following terms :-

(2.) The respondent, Union of India, appeared before the learned single Judge to oppose the prayer for extension of such an order, but the learned single Judge by his order dated December 16, 1983 extended the said ad interim order until disposal of the writ petition. Unfortunately for us since the learned Judge has not given any reasons we are not in a position to appreciate what considerations prevailed with the learned Judge in granting Or extending such an interim order.

(3.) Since the interim order was so passed on a writ petition moved before the learned single Judge on August 26, 1983 we have with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties carefully gone through that petition to decide for ourselves whether an appropriate case for making of such an interim order having been made out, the order as passed should be sustained. It appears from the said writ petition that the customs authorities, acting on certain previous information to the effect that huge quantities of foreign goods were being regularly smuggled by an organised group of people, seized a huge quantity of smuggled goods between November 21, 19.82 and November 23, 1982. The value of the goods so seized which were all smuggled is said to be worth more than Rs. 1.50 crores. The writ petitioner in his writ petition alleged that with reference to the said seizure the custom authorities conducted simultaneous search and seizure at his residence and also at his place of business. In course of that search certain documents and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- alleged to be belonging to his sons were seized. Summons under section 108 of the Customs Act was issued to him on November 23, 1982, but according to the petitioner, such summons was invalid in law and was issued without jurisdiction. Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioner did not appear before the authorities in answer to the summons so issued. On the other hand, on November 30, 1982 he filed an application for anticipatory bail. That application was rejected by this court. For months he could neither be arrested nor did he appear before the customs authorities until on May 19, 1983 he filed a fresh application for anticipatory bail. That application was disposed of by this court on June 27, 1983 when a conditional order for bail was made by this court - one of the conditions being that the writ petitioner must appear before the customs authorities in. the investigation they were then conducting.