UNION OF INDIA Vs. SOMANATHA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri B. Mohanty for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel (Central) for the opp. parties. 2 In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners prayed to quash the order dated 15-11-79 passed by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Bhubaneswar (opp. party no. 3), as per Annexure 3, the appellate order dated 4-10-80 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs (opp. party no. 2) as per Annexure 4 and the revisional order dated 24-2-82 passed by the Addl. Secretary to Govt. of India (opp. party no. 1) as per Annexure 8 and to direct return of the gold to the petitioner no. 3.

(2.) The proceeding in which the aforementioned orders were passed was initiated under section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on the allegations that the petitioners 1 and 2 were found to be in possession of the primary gold in contravention of the Act. The gold was seized by the authority. The plea taken by the said petitioners in respect of a portion of the seized gold was that it belonged to their mother, petitioner no. 3, and was not a part of the stock-in-trade of the partnership firm M/s. Jyostna Alankar Bhandar of which petitioners 1 and 2 are partners. The opp. parties did not accept the plea and passed the impugned order confiscating the gold. Hence this writ application.

(3.) In course of hearing Shri B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order by the revisional authority (Annexure-8) was passed ex parte and the petitioners had no opportunity to place their case before the said authority. He further submitted that in the meanwhile a material development which has taken place is that in the connected criminal case instituted against petitioners 1 and 2 on the self-same allegations this Court in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1983 disposed of on 11th August, 1988 acquitted the accused persons holding that the allegation of unauthorized possession of the gold by them was not established. Shri Mohanty prays that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter should be remitted to the revisional authority for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the petitioners to place their case before the said authority.