2022 (1) TMI 405 - HC - Customs

Seeking release of detained goods - it is contended that the relief is to be extended for the purpose of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the respondents 3 and 4 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that disputed facts can never be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such disputed issues are to be adjudicated with reference to the original documents and evidences which all are to be scrutinized by the authorities competent and by the parties concerned. This apart, the terms and conditions of the contract, if any violations thereon, are to be adjudicated by conducting a trial before the appropriate forum and such an exercise is impermissible in writ proceedings. The High Court cannot conduct a rowing enquiry based on the affidavits filed by the parties in a Writ Petition. This being the principles to be followed, the extended prayer sought for by the petitioner by filing an amendment petition deserves no merit consideration and further relief, if any requires, the petitioner has to approach the competent forum for adjudication. However, the fact remains that the original relief sought for in the Writ Petition had been granted in favour of the writ petitioner and 100% goods were released and the detention certificate was also issued. This Court is of the considered opinion that the cause arose for filing of the present Writ Petition did not exist and the amendment sought for is beyond the scope of the original relief sought for in the Writ Petition, as admittedly, the original relief sought for had been granted by the respondents - the writ petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law, if any grievances exist. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought for the release of detained goods and refund of charges.
2. Amendment sought for action against specific respondents for refunding charges.
3. Dispute over further action against respondents 3 and 4.
4. Entertainability of writ for contractual disputes.
5. Adjudication of disputed facts and contractual violations.
6. Scope of writ proceedings under Article 226.
7. Consideration of extended prayer in the writ petition.
8. Dismissal of the writ petition and liberty to pursue remedy.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a writ to direct the release of the remaining 10% of detained goods and refund of charges paid for detention, demurrage, and warehouse charges. The relief was also for the issuance of a detention certificate and interest on the amount paid.

2. An amendment was filed seeking action against specific respondents for refunding charges collected for the detained goods. The amendment requested action in accordance with the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulation, 2009.

3. Despite the release of 100% of the goods and compliance with the original relief sought, the petitioner pressed for further action against respondents 3 and 4 based on a detention certificate and a complaint submitted by the petitioner.

4. The court addressed the issue of whether a writ is entertainable for contractual disputes, with the 3rd respondent being a Customs Service Provider covered under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.

5. The court emphasized that disputed facts and contractual violations are to be adjudicated by the competent forum, and a writ proceeding under Article 226 cannot resolve such issues based on affidavits alone.

6. The court clarified the scope of writ proceedings, stating that disputed matters require scrutiny of original documents and evidence by competent authorities and parties involved.

7. The court considered the extended prayer in the writ petition for further relief beyond the original scope, noting that the original relief had already been granted, and any fresh cause of action should be pursued through the appropriate forum.

8. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner could pursue remedies before the appropriate forum if any grievances persisted, thus granting liberty to seek redress through the legal process.