9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hakraborty, 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 aforesaid goods, the said truck loaded with the goods was checked at different check gates, and the authority concerned of the check gates had also is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued declaring the goods to be unclaimed seizure under the Customs Act. It is in these circumstances, respondent approached this Court by filing a WP(C) No. 3380 of 1999, against the aforesaid notice of the appellant authority. This Court by its order dated 22-9-1999 in WP(C) No. 3380 of 1999 issued directions as follows : "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on records, without deciding the question of law raised in these writ applications, I feel that the interest of justice required that the truck in question i.e., AS-06-A-4866 belonging to the petitioner Gagan Deo Shah in CR No. 4030/99 shall be returned to him within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of raw beetle nuts and 25 nos. of bamboo made mats to the petitioner/respondent. 8. In spite of repeated request, for releasing the seized goods in question, the appellant authority refused to comply with the orders passed by this Court and also the final order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, North Eastern Region, Shillong. As a consequence of which, the seized goods got totally damaged and destroyed. 9. In such a situation, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 657 of 2000, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-, only being the cost of seized goods as well as the mental torture and harassment meted out to the petitioner respondent during the entire episode. The respondent appellant contested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, immunizes the State, completely, from any loss or damage suffered by the owner. Whether confiscation of part of the goods absolves the State from any claim for the loss or damage suffered by the owner for the goods, which are directed to be released or returned to it. While deciding the Issue in question Hon'ble Supreme Court, by discussing the decision rendered in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore observed as follows :- "Similarly, in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore [(1977) 4 SCC 358 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 598 : AIR 1977 SC 1749 240], the question arose regarding powers of the Court in indemnifying the owner of the property which is destroyed or lost whilst in the custody of the Court. The goods were seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 could be taken by the civil court, the suit of the appellant could not be dismissed." 16. In State of Bombay (now Gujarat) v. Menon Mahomed Haji Hasam : AIR 1967 SC 1885, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the power to seize and confiscate was dependent upon a customs offence having been committed or a suspicion that such offence had been committed. The order of the Customs Officer was not final as it was subject to an appeal and if the appellate authority found that there was no good ground for the exercise of that power, the propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
