9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral) This petition was initially taken up on 12.07.2016, when we took note of the basic grievance of the petitioner that the application moved by him as back as on 07.04.2016, for release of seized goods, had not been decided by the authority concerned. After finding no plausible answer to the basic issues raised in the writ petition as to why the application made by the petitioner on 07.04.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd despite opportunity, the authority concerned chose not to finally decide the application of the petitioner and rather filed an affidavit-in-opposition, again suggesting that the application for provisional release was not considered. It was not forthcoming as to why the application of the petitioner was not decided in clear terms by way of a speaking order. In the circumstances of the case, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondents in passing the order on the application of the petitioner cannot be appreciated; and it is difficult to appreciate that the authority concerned chose to pass the order on the petitioner's application only after repeated orders of this Court expecting him to do so. However, when the order so passed could be questioned in the regular proceedings, we are not inclined to continue wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
