2014 (12) TMI 150 - SC - Customs

Application for withdrawal of petition - Premature petition - Held that - petitioners have expressed their desire to withdraw these writ petitions realizing the remote possibility of getting any relief in these writ petitions having regard to the premature stage at which this Court was approached by filing of these writ petitions, we are convinced that the petitioners can be permitted to withdraw these writ petitions with the right to work out their remedy as and when any appropriate situation arises for working out such remedy. We also make it clear that whatever impediment caused in pursuing the proceedings by the respondents pursuant to the issuance of the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act or Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, during the period when the interim order was in operation can always be excluded for availing the statutory period available under the respective provisions of law. - Petition withdrawn.

Summary

Issues: Prematurity of writ petition seeking mandamus for determination of bailable offense under Customs Act, withdrawal of writ petitions, prejudice caused to authorities due to prolonged pendency, permission to withdraw writ petitions, exclusion of time period for statutory provisions.

The Supreme Court considered the issue of prematurity of a writ petition seeking mandamus to determine if an offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act is bailable. The petition was based on alleged threats and a search conducted at the petitioner's ex-wife's premises. The Court found the petition premature, expressing that the allegations were flimsy and did not warrant an extraordinary constitutional remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to seek remedy if necessary in the future. The Solicitor General highlighted the prejudice caused to authorities due to the prolonged pendency of the writ petition, which hindered their actions under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act. The Court acknowledged the withdrawal of the writ petitions, emphasizing that it should not prevent authorities from taking necessary actions under the Acts and the Code in the future. The Court dismissed all writ petitions as withdrawn, with no costs imposed, and clarified that the time period during which the interim order was in effect would not count towards statutory provisions under the respective laws. The Court concluded that there was no need to answer the legal question framed earlier, leaving it open for determination in a suitable case.