IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21342 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHRI.ISMAIL KUNHABDULLA, S/O.ISMAIL, RESIDING AT BEKKALKUNNIL HOUSE, KHILLIRIYA NAGAR, PALLIKARE P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 316. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN-682018. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIR CUSTOMS, CALICUT AIR PORT, KARIPUR-673647. ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21342 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL IN O.S.NO.42/2011 DTD.12.7.2011 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.8597 DTD.12.7.2011 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.28.7.2011 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PROVISIONAL RELEASE DTD.28.7.2011 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EARLY POSTING DTD.28.7.2011 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DTD.19.7.2011 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.19.7.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.21342 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a non-resident Indian, imported 131 pieces of Parda and 50 packets of Gutkha on his arrival from Dubai as a hand baggage. The 2nd respondent inspected the baggage and seized the articles and finally Ext.P1 order was passed, confiscating the goods absolutely and imposed personal penalty. Ext.P2 shows that the petitioner has paid the personal penalty. 3. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 1st respondent along with Ext.P4 application for provisional release and Ext.P5 application for early posting. However, it is admitted that there is no incumbent in the office of the 1st respondent for quite sometime and therefore the appeal remains pending even without a posting. It is in these circumstances the W.P(C) No.21342 of 2011 2 petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following prayers: “a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 to Ext.P5 within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble Court. Or In the alternative direct the 1st respondent to take a decision at least on Ext.P4 within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. The petitioner has also sought an interim relief directing the respondents to release 131 pieces of Parda, which is also absolutely confiscated. 5. As far as the main relief in the writ petition is concerned, that is for the disposal of the appeal. Having regard to the fact that the appeal is a statutory one, the appeal is bound to be considered it. Therefore I direct that the appeal shall be dealt with in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 6. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner for directing to release of 131 pieces of Parda cloth is concerned, it is not a case of the respondent that the cloth in question is a prohibited article. If that be so, the W.P(C) No.21342 of 2011 3 petitioner is entitled to the option under Section 125 of the Customs Act, which liberty is denied to him in Ext.P1 order. 7. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the petitioner is entitled to get the cloth released, provided the petitioner complies with the conditions to be imposed by the respondent in exercise of their power under Section 125 of the Customs Act. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I direct that, on production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent will pass orders giving the petitioner option to pay redemption fine in terms of the provisions contained under Section 125 of the Customs Act, in so far as 131 pieces of Parda cloth is concerned. 9. Orders in that behalf shall be passed at any rate within seven days of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ab