9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 152 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2011 - Madan B. Lokur, C.J. and A.C. Upadhyay, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri D.C. Chakraborty, CGC, for the Appellant. Shri D. Sengupta, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment and Order per : A.C. Upadhyay, J. (CAV)]. Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 16-2-2006, passed by learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 657 of 2000, whereby a direction was issued to the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as costs of the seized goods and compensation for mental torture caused to writ petitioner/respondent. 2. We have heard Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, learned C.G.C. for the writ appellant-Union of India. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. 3. The facts, leading to filing of this writ appeal, may be stated, in brief as follows : The petitioner/respondent, in course of his business, sent 61 bags of beetle nuts on 3-7-1999, along with 25 nos. of bamboo mats from his residence at Dibrugarh to his own house at Manchachar District, Dhubri through his brother. The aforesaid goods were carried in truck bearing Registration No. AS-06-A-4566, together with all necessary valid documents of the vehicle. While transporting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of the truck shall furnish a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) along with an undertaking that the truck in question shall be produced before the authority as and when required by the Custom authority in connection with any case/action that may be initiated by the authority or in connection with any criminal case. 61 bags of bettlenut along with 25 nos. of bamboo mats seized belonging to Md. Esa Ali, the petitioner in CR No. 3380/99 shall be returned to him on furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand). This is required as these are perishable goods. 6. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3380 of 1999, specifically directed the present appellant to return the goods seized by them to the petitioner/respondent on furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,000/-. However, when the petitioner respondent approached the concerned appellant authority, for return of the seized goods and also furnished the security bond, for release of the vehicle in question, the respondent authority refused to do so. 7. Ultimately, the petitioner/respondent filed statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, North Eastern Region, Shillong, against the unauthorized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner-respondent. 12. By filing this writ appeal, the appellants contended that the seizure in respect of the goods in question was made in accordance with law, therefore, even if, there was damage to the articles seized, no responsibility would be attributable to the respondent/appellant authority and no compensation can be awarded. 13. It is apparent that a specific direction was issued to the respondent appellant authority to return the goods seized by them by obtaining a security bond of Rs. 15,000/-. However, the order passed by this Court was not carried out without any cogent reason. Over and above, the Commissioner of Customs, North Eastern Region, also passed an order on 26-2-2002, for releasing the goods and vehicle to the owner, which only reveals and reflects that the seizure was illegal. Indolence of the appellant authority in taking immediate necessary action to save the goods is writ large. Undeniably, the goods, in question, got damaged due to apathy on the part of the authority concerned. Apparently, if the goods would have been returned to the petitioner/respondent at the right earnest, in response to the direction issued by the learned single Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to clothe the Magistrate with the power to pass an order for return of the property. Where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property. 33. Therefore, where the goods confiscated or seized are required to be returned either under orders of the court or because of the provision in the Act, this Court has not countenanced the objection that the goods having been lost or destroyed the owner of the goods had no remedy in private law and the court was not empowered to pass an order or grant decree for payment of the value of goods. Public policy requires the court to exercise the power in private law to compensate the owner where the damage or loss is suffered by the negligence of officers of the State in respect of cause of action for which suits are maintainable in civil court. Since the seizure and confiscation of appellant s goods was not in exercise of power which could be considered to be act of State of which no cognizance c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
