9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for any personal gain or private profit or out of any motivation or other oblique consideration. Learned Counsel hastened to add that the petitioner has no ill-will against Sri Satyasai Baba, first respondent herein. His only concern is to focus attention on what he considered to be a flagrant violation of certain provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 ( the Act for short) and the continued indifference on the part of the authorities to whom representations were made by him since 1981 to take note of the alleged violations. Being fully convinced that the authorities to whom representations were made by the petitioner are reluctant to take action, learned Counsel stated, the petitioner had no alternative but to bring the matter before this Court for appropriate consideration. Demonstrating a sense of fairness, learned Counsel has put up for consideration of this Court certain legal propositions tersely and attractively and pleaded for issuance of notices to the respondents. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government. 3. Briefly put, the matter is this : Over the decades the first respondent gained reputation and popularity as a God-man and has consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner claims that the aforementioned acts of the first respondent involving according to the petitioner, violations of the Act were brought to the notice of the Gold Control Authorities for taking appropriate action against the first respondent but the representations made by the petitioner went unheeded. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 2 to 5 to initiate action against the first respondent for infringement of the provisions contained in Sections 8, 11, l4 and 16 of the Act, punishable under Sections 85, 86 and 87 of the Act. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to the Union Government respondent No. 2 herein, to initiate action against respondents 3 to 5 under Section 95 of the Act, as according to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5 have failed to discharge their duty for the contravention of the provisions of the Act by the first respondent when brought to their notice. This briefly is the subject matter of the writ petition. 5. Both in the affidavit as well as the Writ Petition reference was made to the alleged contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 8, 11, 14 and 16 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding Counsel for the Central Government urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case the first respondent could not be said to be making, manufacturing or preparing or processing any gold articles or gold ornaments involving violation of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel also urged that in the facts and circumstances the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act also do not come into operation. Learned Standing Counsel urged that it was obviously for the above reasons that respondents 2 to 5 did not think it necessary to initiate any action as urged by the petitioner in his representations. 8. I have given my anxious and careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I am unable to accept the contention that in the facts and circumstances urged in the present case there is any violation of the provisions contained in Sections 11 and 16 of the Act. I have already indicated the relevant provisions in Sections 11 and 16 of the Act. The short question for consideration is whether by materialising articles and ornaments, as alleged by the petitioner, the first respondent could be said t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to accept that in the facts and circumstances, there is any obligation to make a declaration in respect of such matters. Even according to the petitioner, the article or ornament is instantly materialised from thin air and given away to the devotees. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner has acquired any ownership or possession, custody or control of any such article or ornament. It is not denied that the article or ornament is not materialised by the first respondent for the purpose of acquiring any ownership or for the purpose of keeping it in his possession. It is categorically admitted that the article or ornament containing gold is materialised for the sole and specific purpose of giving it away blessing the devotee. The terms of Section 16 of the Act, therefore, have no application. 10. In order to justify the allegation that the first respondent acquired ownership or possession of article or ornament the petitioner makes certain averments in the affidavit, I may refer to the following averments : The first respondent has set up and controls many Trusts and he claims that he is a sanyasi and has renounced all his wealth. Then, plainly the said Trusts owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
