9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 786 - HC - CustomsSeeking return of Gold seized and confiscated 40 years ago - request to release the gold on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation - the petitioner is seeking enforcement of order dated 22.11.1983, i.e., after 39 long years. - Smuggling - submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that all the time, respondent No. 2 was expressing that an appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, therefore, the gold was not redeemed, cannot be accepted because it is not the case of the petitioner that any appeal was ever filed against the order dated 22.11.1983 by any of the parties - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. THRU ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR ANR. VERSUS K. THANGAPPAN ANR. 2006 (4) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT has held that The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. RAM MOHAN RAJA VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU ORS 2007 (4) TMI 714 - SUPREME COURT has held that So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8-10-1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit. Thus, no case is made out warranting interference after 41 years of seizure of gold and 39 years of order dated 22.11.1983. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Return of seized gold. 2. Compensation for suffering and agony due to negligence. 3. Costs of the petition. 4. Delay and laches in filing the petition. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Return of Seized Gold: The petitioner sought the return of gold weighing 156.350 grams of 24 karats and 13.900 grams of 22 karats, which was seized on 22.10.1981 and subsequently confiscated by the Superintendent (GOID / Customs), Central Excise, Headquarters, Indore. The order dated 22.11.1983 allowed the petitioner to redeem the gold by paying a fine of Rs. 6,000/-. However, the petitioner claimed that despite applying for redemption, the gold was not returned due to the respondents' assertion that an appeal was pending. The court found no evidence of any appeal filed against the order dated 22.11.1983 and noted that the petitioner failed to act vigilantly to verify the appeal status. The court emphasized the principle that "delay defeats equity," citing the significant increase in gold prices over time and suggesting that the petitioner aimed to take advantage of this delay. 2. Compensation for Suffering and Agony: The petitioner requested compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for suffering and agony caused by the respondents' negligence. The court did not find merit in this claim, primarily due to the petitioner's failure to act diligently and the prolonged delay in seeking relief. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Karnataka Power Corpon. Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan, which emphasized that delay or laches could lead to the denial of discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Costs of the Petition: The petitioner also sought the costs of the petition. However, the court dismissed the petition due to the inordinate delay and lack of satisfactory explanation for the same. The court reiterated that the doctrine of laches is not arbitrary but is based on principles of equity, considering the length of delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. 4. Delay and Laches in Filing the Petition: The court extensively discussed the issue of delay and laches, citing numerous Supreme Court decisions. It highlighted that delay or laches is a critical factor when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226. The court noted that even if a fundamental right is involved, the matter remains within the court's discretion, which must be exercised judicially and reasonably. The court referenced cases such as Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, which underscored that unexplained delay and the creation of third-party rights are significant factors in deciding whether to exercise writ jurisdiction. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim, filed after 39 years, was too stale to merit redress. Conclusion: The court found no justification for interference after 41 years of the gold seizure and 39 years of the order dated 22.11.1983. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
|
