Civil No 1247 of 1986
244 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Ranji Thomas and T Sridharan for the Petitioners
BP Beri BR Agarwala Miss Sushma Manchanda Miss A Subhashini BD Sharma RS Yadav Yogeshwar Prasad Mrs section Dikshit HK Puri and P Paremeshwaran for the Respond ents
The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER The facts of this case are indeed distressing
The Lions Club Pottery Town at Khurja in Uttar Pradesh arranged and conducted as part of its social service programme an Eye Camp intended to extend facilities of expert Ophthal mic surgical services to the residents of the town
The Club invited Dr RM Sahay of the Sahay Hospital Jaipur and his team of doctors to offer the surgical services
The Camp was arranged in Aggarwal Dharamshala  at Novelty Road Khurja
Dr RM Sahay and his team of doctors and para medical staff who arrived in Khurja on 21st April 1986 examined about 122 patients
One hundred and eight patients were operated upon 88 of them for Cataract which with the modern advances in Ophthalmic Surgery is considered a relatively minor and low risk surgery
Dr Sahay left Khurja that evening for Moradabad where he was scheduled to conduct similar operations at another Eye Camp
 But the whole programme at Khurja however laudable the intentions with which it might have been launched proved a disastrous medical misadventure for the patients
The oper ated eyes of the patients were irreversibly damaged owing to a post operative infection of the Intra Ocular Cavities of the operated eyes
The doctors present at the Camp got in touch with Dr Sahay at Moradabad and administered anti biotic medication both oral and local for the infection
Dr Sahay returned on the 24th April and undertook himself some ameliorative treatment
But the operated eyes had been damaged completely
Similar mishap but on lesser scale affecting some 15 patients repeated itself at Moradabad
Some of the victims were later sent to and treated at Dr Sahay s Hospital at Jaipur
But their condition did not improve
It is now undisputed that this terrible medical mishap was due to common contaminating source
The suggestion in the Report of the 245 enquiries that ensued is that in all probability the source of the infection referred to as E coli infection of the intra ocular cavity was the normal saline used on the eyes at the time of surgery
Dr Sahay who had himself brought all medicines and surgical instruments for use at the Camp claims to have purchased the Saline from a certain Ms Mehtaad Company Jaipur on 2231986 under Invoice No 1533
The matter was brought before this Court in the form of a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 by two social activists Shri AS Mittal and Shri Om Prakash Tapas acting on behalf of an organisation called Union for Welfare and Human Rights 
Originally the four respondents were the State of UP Dr RM Sahay the Chief Medical Officer Buland Sahar District UP and the Lions Club of Pottery Town Khurja
However this Court by its order dated 2691986 directed the Indian Medical Council and the Union of India to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings
All the respondents have filed their respective counter affida vits
In the Writ Petition the petitioners have made serious allegations about the very bona fides of and the intention behind the sponsoring of the iII fated eye camp  and have alleged that motives of monetary gains by way of State and International subsidies
But no material is placed before the Court to substantiate this allegation
The prayers in the writ petition are that the victims of this medical mishap be given expert rehabilitatory treatment and appro priate compensation that Government do conduct a thorough investigation as to the conditions which rendered a medical misadventure of such a scale possible and evolve proper guide lines which will prevent recurrence of such tragedies and that appropriate legal action be instituted against Dr RM Sahay and his team and also against officers of the Government who according to allegations committed serious breaches of duty in sanctioning permission for the conduct of the eye camp  without ensuring a strict compliance with the conditions prescribed in the Guidelines prescribed by the Government in that behalf and in not effectively dis charging the duties enjoined upon them to over see the satisfactory and safe functioning of the camp
At the directions of the Government of Uttar Pradesh the Deputy Director Eye Treatment
conducted an inquiry into the happenings and his report and recommendations submitted to the Government are produced in the proceedings
Similarly the inquiry report dated 861986 conducted by Shri Shatrughan Singh Sub Divisional Magistrate Khurja as to the incident are also before the Court
We 246 have perused these reports and the counter affidavits and heard learned counsel
So far as the grievance in the Writ Petition of prosecutorial inaction on the part of the Government and the need to direct Government to initiate appropriate action against those responsible for the tragedy is concerned it was submitted before us that persuant to the results of the inquiries conducted by the Deputy Director Eye Treatment and the Sub Divisional Magistrate appropriate follow up action is contemplated by the Government against persons concerned and that indeed a criminal case has been regis tered against Dr RM Sahay under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code
It was however submitted on behalf of Dr RM Sahay Respondent No 2 that we should abstain from saying any thing which might tend to pre judge merits of the prosecu tion
In his counteraffadivit Dr Sahay says The police has registered a case us 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the Answering Respondent and he has been admitted to bail
Any process by which the answering respondent would be compelled to disclose in advance his defence at the criminal trial by replying to specific allegations in the Writ Petition would be violative of article 203 of the Con stitution of India in so far as it concerns the Answering Respondent
 Referring to the limited scope of the present proceed ings Dr Sahay expresses the confidence   that in view of the noble objective of this kind litigation it will not in any manner be prejudicial to the answering re spondent
 We think we should accept the submission of the doctor and should abstain from pronouncing on the question of culpable rashness or negligence on the part of the doctors or others against whom separate action is either pending or contemplated
But there are some assumptions and Statements in counteraffidavit of Dr Sahay that cannot be allowed to pass without comment
It is undisputed that out of those operated at Khurja at least 84 persons suffered permanent damage of the operated eyes
It is said 247 that about 15 similar cases occurred at the Moradabad Eye Camp 
Indeed in the course of his counter affidavit Dr Sahay admitted the unfortunate event which he called a Mishap The medical mishap at the Khurja Camp is the only one he has encountered in his entire extensive experience Despite all possible care MISHAPS cannot always be avoided in human errors because the error of one link in the entire chain may sometime result in a total failure
 But the doctor s description of what happened to the victims is somewhat of an over simplification
As to the devastation the almost universal post operative infection left behind in its trial the doctor says It is unfortunate that despite every care taken by the Answering Respondent and his associates and assistants a large number of patients could not regain their vision in the Khurja Camp It is extremely unfortunate that some 84 patients  vision could not be restored despite every care bestowed by the answering respond ent and his associates and assistants The number of patients operated upon at Moradabad Camp for cataract were about 380 and the vision of about 10 of them could not be restored
A small percentage of failures is considered normal    Emphasis supplied We are afraid the doctor may not be justified in this description of the large scale and calamitous effects the operation had on the hapless victims
It is perhaps a euphemism to call the incident as one where some 84 pa tients  vision could not be restored
 These are not mere cases of eye sight of the patients not having been restored in the sense that the surgical operations conducted on them did not yield the desired result or that no positive bene fit was derived by them from the surgery
But the picture is entirely different
It is not merely that the unfortunate patients did not derive any benefit from the surgery but were greatly worse of than they were before the surgery owing to the post operative intra ocular infection that damaged the operated eyes beyond redemption
Even according to Dr Sahay the modern techni 248 ques in opthalmic surgery render cataract a minor operation
A cataract affected eye when properly operated is expected to become normal
The operation is meant to remove an ob struction to vision and restoration of normal eye sight
This implies that the eyes of patients selected for opera tion had the potential for restoration of sight
In the present cases they have become totally blind in the operat ed eyes
Apart altogether from the causal connection between the widespread infection and medication or surgical procedures as the case may be applied or employed it is really undis puted that such a general and widespread post operative infection did occur
Referring to the medical management of the emerging crisis Dr Sahay himself says It may be mentioned that on the morning of 22nd April 1986 Dr R Sekhri opened the bandage and suspected intra ocular infection and therefore commenced antibiotic treatment both local and oral
On the 22nd April Dr Sekhri reached Moradabad for consultations
The Answering Respondent approved of the antibiotic medicines and sent Dr M Punjabi with additional supplies of medicines of Khurja
On 2341986 both Dr Sekhri and Dr M Punjabi gave anterior chamber wash and antibiotic medicines
At about midnight the answering respondent rushed by road to Khurja without any consideration for his personal comfort and commenced attending the patients
He washed anterior chambers performed vitrec tomy removing the infected part and adminis tered pain relieving medicines
The petition ers have inexactly described the doings as operation sedation and removal of Cornea
All this was done in the same room in which the earlier operations were performed
One of the points brought out in the petition is that the propaganda literature published by the Lions Club in relation to the camp was that allurements prohibited by medical ethics were held out to the patients with attrac tive slogans such as Get Operated and go home  No re striction of food  No bed rest  and No stitches to be removed  etc etc
It was alleged that the guidelines required a minimal institutional post operative care for few days under constant competent medical supervision and that in the present case the patients were allowed to go back immediately after the operations
Dr Sahay s affidavit in a way does not deny this kind of propaganda or lack of 249 institutional post operation care
Indeed some justifica tion is pleaded
Dr Sahay says in his counter affidavit It is true that in the modern technique a cataract operation by Crye Micro Surgery System does not require 10 days immobility or liquid diet and the like because the modern sutures securely seal the operation incision and make it water tight
The sutures are seldom removed and the patient is in normal cases fit enough to move about within few hours of the operation
The Khurja Camp opera tions were conducted between the hours of about 11 AM to 6 PM with half an hour s break
The 9 operation tables for three sur geons gave ample room and time for pre opera tion steps and post operative procedures
 How far the lack of intensive post operative institu tional care contributed to the infection or the aggravation of its effects is a matter which cannot be decided in these proceedings
These are technical matters for professional medical assessments
But the guidelines prescribed by Gov ernment do not prima facie seem to encourage such compla cence in regard to the imperatives of post operative care
The problems of the Ophthalmic Health Status of the Indian citizen are of a dimension causing an under standable concern
The very large number of cases of impairment of visual acuity in the country needs the purposeful involve ment of voluntary social organisations so as to provide an augmented broad based participatory medi care for the general improvement of the tone of ophthalmic health in the country
Government of India evolved a comprehensive policy and programme for control of blindness which amongst other things envisaged a programme for the promotion of eye care through eye camps  organised by social and voluntary organ isations and to provide financial assistance to them
Our attention was drawn to the circular No T 12011482 OPTH dated 13101982 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to all the States and Union Terri tories laying down certain norms and guidelines for the conduct of such eye camps 
A copy of that circular is annexure R 1  to the counter affidavit dated 1011987 filed on behalf of the State of UP Pursuant thereto on 1841984 State Government issued appropriate directions to its officers and authorities for strict compliance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government
It is on the basis of these guidelines that permis 250 sion was accorded to the Lions Club to conduct the eye camp
The permission granted by Chief Medical Officer Buland Shahar on 214
1986 says The Lions Club Pottery Town Instituteorganisation is permitted to hold free eye camps applied with the specific condition that the camps will be organised in rural areas and supervised by Senior Ophthal mic Surgeon  the operation will be performed by the qualified Ophtalmic surgeon and staff and that competent ophthalmic Surgeons would remain at the camp site throughout the duration of the camp till the last patient is discharged 8
Though the events at the eye camp raise several questions of interest on the law as to professional negli gence we do not want to be understood as intending to record any findings on the conduct of Dr RM Sahay and his team or the officers of UP Government who granted permis sion for the eye camp and who allegedly did not discharge their duties implicit in the guidelines issued by Govern ment
A mistake by a medical practitioner which no reasona bly competent and a careful practitioner would have commit ted is a negligent one
One of the questions that might arise in the appropriate forum is whether the doctors judged by the circumstances in which they were working made a mistake and if so whether such a mistake was negligent
A vast amount of legal literature concerns the concept of reasonable man  in the Law of Torts
To some like Sir Allen Herbert he is never a woman to some others an odious and insufferable creature who never makes a mistake  and according to Lord Radcliff the parties would become disembodied spirits in whose place arises the idea of a reasonable man as the anthropomorphic conception of jus tice
But the law recognises the dangers which are inherent in surgical operations
Mistakes will occur on occasions despite the exercise of reasonable skill and care
Jackson and Powell on Professional Negligence  1982 Edn say   
In White vs Board of Governors of Westminister Hospital a surgeon accidentally cut the retina during an operation on the plaintiff s right eye
As a result the eye became useless and had to be removed
Thompson J acquitted the surgeon of any negligence
He was working 251 within a very few millimeters and exercised due skill care and judgment   Page 232 But in a case where the plaintiff developed meningitis as a result of some infection in the apparatus used in the operation it was held that there must have been some negli gence by the hospital staff for which the hospital authority was responsible
ibid para 653 But where the operation is a race against time the Court will make greater allowance for mistake on the part of the surgeon or his assistants taking into account the Risk benefit  test
In Dr Laxman Balakrishna Joshi vs Trimback Bapu Godbola AIR 1969 SC 128 Para 11 this Court held lm The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear
A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose
Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties viz a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment
A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient
The practitioner must bring to his task a reasona ble degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a rea sonable degree of care
Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law re quires The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in case of emergency   Street on Torts 1983 7th edn suggests that doctrine of Res Ipso Loquitur is attracted    where an unexplained accident occurs from a thing under the control of the defend ant and medical or other experts evidence shows that such accidents would not happen if proper care were used there is at least evidence of negligence for a jury P 126 Charlsworth  Percy on Negligence  refer to a case where a 252 woman was placed in the same ward with another suspected of and later found to be suffering from puerperaI fever and as a result she got puerperal fever herself
The doctor was held negligent in not isolating her when the other case was suspected and in not taking steps to prevent her from being infected
See P 546
The explanation of the doctors appears to be that the infection occurred despite all precaution
Though it is not said so in so many words the drift of the explanation is that the saline used to irrigate the eyes during surgery to maintain turgidity of the operational surface which was purchased from a reputed manufacturer might be the source of the contamination
If that be so the question of the li ability of the manufacturer for what is called product liability and the further question whether in such cases of mass use a pre test for safety and purity of the article was necessary and whether failure to do so would be action able
These questions are necessarily to be answered on evidence
In these proceedings neither do we have full evidence nor does the scope of the proceedings permit such findings to be recorded conclusively
The aspects to which the present proceed ings are confined are a Whether the Guidelines prescribing norms and conditions for the conduct of eye camps  are sufficiently comprehensive to ensure the protection of the patients who are generally drawn from the poorer and less affluent sec tion of society or whether any further guide lines would require to be evolved b What relief monitary or otherwise should be afforded to those who have suffered Re Point a 11
After the institution of these proceedings Central Government in the wake of reports of mishaps in Eye Camps  constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Union Health Minister with six State Health Ministers and four experts as members to re examine and update the existing guidelines or evolve fresh ones
As a result of the deliberations of the said Committee and pursuant to its recommendations the guidelines for conduct of eye camps earlier issued have been updated and revised
A copy of the Revised Guidelines issued on 253 92
1988 by the Ministry of Health  Family Welfare vide their No T 120194186 OPTH Pt II dated 92
1988 is filed before the Court
We have perused these guidelines which are sent to all the States for implementation
The Indian Medical Council after its impleadment in these proceedings also constituted a sub committee with Dr P Shiva Reddy and other members
The Committee deliberated on the issue and its recommendations in regard to the norms for the conduct and management of eye camps have been filed before this Court
We place record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by the Council
We have examined the revised guidelines issued on 92
1988 by the Union Government and the recommendation of the subcommittee of the Indian Medical Council
The two sets of norms though evolved independently substantially cover all the important areas
We think that the Revised norms issued by the Union Government on 921988 arrived at after a careful study of all aspects of the problem are quite comprehensive
However we venture to suggest that some points made in the Report and Recommendation of the expert sub committee of the Indian Medical Council may be consid ered by the Union Government for incorporation in their Revised Guidelines dated 921988
The prescriptions re ferred to by the said sub committee of the Indian Medical Council at pages 45 and 10 respectively of the report are these Staff The operations in the camp should only be performed by qualified experienced Oph thalmic Surgeons registered with Medical Council of India or any State Medical Council
The camp should not be used as a training ground for post graduate students and opera tive work should not be entrusted to post graduate students
 There should be a pathologist to examine Urine blood sugar etc
It is preferable to have a Dentist to check the teeth for sepsis and a Physician for general medical check up Midication a All medicines to be used should be of standard quality duly verified by the doctor in charge of the camp
 254 These aspects are generally covered in the Government s Revised Guidelines dated 921988
But for the sake of special emphasis keeping their importance in view the above aspects stressed in the Report of the Sub committee of the Indian Medical Council may be considered for incorporation in the Revised Guidelines of 9th February 1988
We direct accordingly 13
The necessity of maintenance of the highest stand ards of a septic and sterile conditions at places where Ophthalmic surgery or any surgery is conducted cannot be over emphasised
It is not merely on the formulation of the theoretical standards but really on the professional commit ment with which the prescriptions are implemented that the ultimate result rests
Government States and Union incur enormous expenditure of public money on health care But the standards of cleanliness and hygiene in public hospitals unfortunately leave greatly to be desired
The maintenance of steriles aseptic conditions in hospitals to prevent cross infections should be ordinary routine and minimal incidents of maintenance of hospitals
Purity of the drugs and medicines intended for man use would have to be ensued by prior tests and inspection
But owing to a general air of cynical irreverence towards values that has unfortunate ly developed and to the mood of complacence with the con tinuing deterioration of standards the very concept of standards and the imperatives of their observance tend to be impaired
This is a disturbing feature
The remedy lies in a ruthless adherence to the virtue of method and laying down practical procedures in the minutes of detail and by exact ing not merely expecting strict adherence to these proce dures
On point a we think that the Revised guidelines dated 921988 with the suggested modifications can be held to be satisfactory
Re Point b Pursuant to earlier orders of this Court each of the victims had been paid a sum of Rs500000 by the State Government by way of interim relief
Shri Ranji Thomas learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this was a wholly avoidable mishap and is entirely the result of the composite negligence on the part of the surgical team and the authorities of the UP Government who failed to ensure obedience to the norms
Learned counsel also sought to rest the right of the victims for damages on the footing that the persons who organised the eye camp  were acting pursuant to and under the 255 authority of Government and that on the doctrine of the State action the activity must be reckoned as that of the State itself which must accordingly be held vicariously liable
In regard to the quantum of relief learned counsel submitted that the unfortunate victims had suffered irre versible damage of the eyes which has rendered them wholly incapacitated
We are afraid in the circumstances of this case the factual foundations laid before the Court and the limited scope of the proceedings no appeal could be made to the doctrine of State action
Shri Yogeshwar Prasad learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the State would approach the matter not with the spirit of a litigant in any adversy action but would look upon the proceedings as a participatory exploration for relief to the victims
He further submitted that the State would indeed be willing to render help to the victims within the constraints of its resources
Indeed the factual foundations requisite for establish ing the proximate causal connection for the injury has yet to be established conclusively
These matters would have to be gone into in the criminal and other proceedings that may be pending or in the contemplation of the Government
However we think that on humanitarian consideration the victims should be afforded some monitary relief by the State Government
We direct that in addition to the sum of Rs5000 already paid by way of interim relief the State Government shall pay a further sum of Rs 12500 to each to the victims
The victims entitled to receive the additional payment shall be the same as those who had the benefit of the interim relief of Rs5000
The amount shall be deposit ed as was done in the matter of distribution of interim relief with the District Judge who shall arrange to dis tribute the same in accordance with the procedure adopted at the time of administration of the interim relief
The depos it shall be made within two months from today and the Dis trict Judge shall ensure distribution within the next two months
We further direct that additionally if any of the Victims are otherwise eligible for any benefit of pension under any of the existing schemes now in force in the State their cases shall be considered for such benefit
The Legal Aid and Advice Board of UP State shall take up this issue and process the claims of the victims for such other bene fits under any of the existing Government schemes providing for aid to the aged the disabled and the destitute sub ject to the condi 256 tion that the victims otherwise satisfy the conditions of those schemes
We place on record the services rendered by the petitioners in espousing the cause of these unfortunate victims and prosecuting it with diligence
We direct the State of UP to pay their costs which is quantified at Rs5000
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly
YL Petition disposed of


Summary:
Acting on the basis of the information contained in an advertisement in a newspapers offering the sale of imported manual and electric typewriters adding and calculating machines the customs authorities raided the premises of Ms Typewriters and Stationary Operation Private Ltd Calcutta on 5th May 1966 and recovered fifteen typewriters adding  calculating machines
On inquiry it was learnt that the said machines had been sold to the Company by RN Bagh who in turn disclosed that the machines in question had been pur chased from crew members of the vessels
On 7566 the customs authorities searched the business premises of the Company and found several machines from the documents seized during the search it came to light that there was a conspir acy between the Respondents and some of the crew members of certain vessels whereunder it had been agreed that the Respondents would look after the families of the crew mem bers in India and the crew personnel would draw their wages abroad in foreign currency and after purchasing the said machines
would supply to the Respondents after clearance under the concessions provided under the Baggage Rules
The goods in question were seized on 57th May 1966 and as required by Rule 124a of the Customs Act notices as to why the goods should not be confiscated were due to issue within six months thereof
Section 1102 of the Customs Act provided that if a notice as contemplated by Section 124a is not issued within a period of six months as provided thereunder the goods shall have to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized
However a proviso to Sec
1102 makes a provision that the period of six months can be extended 283 on sufficient cause being shown by the Collector for a period not exceeding six months
The officers of the Customs Department showed cause to the Additional Collector of Customs Calcutta for extension of time to serve a show cause notice on Respondents and extension of six months was granted for the purpose under the proviso to Section 1102 of the Customs Act
No notice of the proceedings relating to the said extension was given to the persons from whose custody the goods were seized
On 6th December 1966 the Assistant Collector of Customs issued a notice to each of the Respondents calling upon them to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated
On April 18 1967 the Respondents filed a Writ Petition in the High Court at Calcutta challenging the proceedings initiated against them by Customs Authorities
The learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the Writ Petition held that the Order of extension to be made under Section 1102 of the Customs Act is not an administrative order but a quasi judicial order and as the order has been passed ex parte without notice to the owner of the goods it was in breach of principle of Natural Justice
The order of exten sion was accordingly quashed and it was held that the owner was entitled to the return of his goods
The appellants appealed to the Appellate Bench
The appellate Bench allowed the appeal in part quashed the order of extension dated 3rd November 1966 directed the appellants to restore the machines and documents seized from the Respondents
However the Customs Authorities were per mitted to initiate and complete such other proceedings against the Respondents as were open to them in law
The appellate Bench was of the opinion that the decision in Assistant Collector of Customs vs Charan Das  lays down the correct law and notice of extension should have been given to the owner of the goods before the Order of extension had been passed
Hence this appeal by the Customs Department
At the hearing of the appeal Respondents placed reliance upon Charan Das Malhotra supra
Reference was also made to the decision in Ms Lokenath Tolaram etc
BN Rangwani appeal were of the opinion that the view taken in the said two cases required reconsideration and the 284 appeal has been referred to a larger Bench for a decision on the question whether the Collector is bound to issue notice to the persons from whose possession the goods were seized and to give him an opportunity to make his representation on the point whether the time for issuing notice under Section 124a of the Act should be extended beyond six months
Partly allowing the appeal this Court HELD The words on sufficient cause being shown in the proviso to Section 1102 of the Customs Act indicates that the Collector of Customs must apply his mind to the point whether a case for extending the period of six months is made out
289E F The right to notice flows not from the mere circumstance that there is a proceeding of a judicial nature but indeed it goes beyond to the basic reason which gives to the pro ceeding its character and that reason is that a right of a person may be affected and there may be prejudice to that right if he is not afforded an opportunity to put forward his case in the proceeding
If the notice is not issued in the confiscation proceedings within six months from the date of the seizure the person from whose possession the goods have been seized becomes immediately entitled to the return of goods
It is that right to the immediate restoration of goods upon the expiry of six months from the date of the seizure that is defeated by the extension of time under the provio to Section 1102
289H 290B C There can be no right in any person to be informed midway during an investigation of the material collected in the case against him
While notice may be necessary to such person to show why time should not be extended he is not entitled to information as to the investigation which is in process
290H 291A The person from whose possession the goods have been seized is therefore entitled to notice of the proposal before the Collector of Customs for the extension of the original period of six months mentioned in Section 1102 of the Customs Act and he is entitled to be heard upon such proposal but subject to the restrictions in regard to the need for maintaining confidentiality of the investigation proceedings
292D E Ganeshmul Channilal Gandhi  Anr vs Collector of Central Excise and Asstt
Collector Bangalore AIR  Sheikh 285 Mohammed Sayeed vs Assistant Collector of Customs for Pre ventive  Others AIR 1970 Calcutta 134 and Karsandas Pepatlal Dhineja  Ors vs Union of India  Anr not applicable