Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
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.
|