BIMAL KUMAR MODI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The real grievance of the appellant-writ petitioner is this. He imported a large consignment of betel nuts which arrived in the port of Kolkata sometime towards the end of 2013. Six years have passed. The goods are still lying there. According to the latest report of a food laboratory in Ghaziabad made on 6th October 2015, the goods are below standard.

(2.) Mr Bose, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the report, to which this court will refer later on in this judgment, made contemporaneously to the time of importation, said that the goods were fit for human consumption. He alleges that if the goods have deteriorated in quality, it is due to the laches and negligence on the part of the respondents, and that they should be made liable in damages for that.

(3.) In the instant writ [WP No.9124(W) of 2015, Shri Bimal Kumar Modi v. Union of India and Ors.] the appellant- makes an attempt to prove that the goods at the time of importation were fit for human consumption, and that the action of the respondents in seizing and confiscating the goods was bad in law.