IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3743 of 2010 MD.SIRAJ AHMAD S/O SRI MD. KURBAN AHMAD R/O WARD NO.9, DARBHANGIYA TOLA, FORBESGANJ, P.S- FORBESGANJ,DISTRICT-ARARIA … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ARARIA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUPAUL 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BHAGALPUR 5. THE DIECTOR, C.B.I, C.G.O. COMPLEX, NEW DELHI 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C.B.I), SRI KRISHNA PATH, BAILY ROAD , PATNA 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 8. SRI SWANTANTRA KUMAR, THE THEN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 9. SRI OM PRAKASH, THE THEN CUSTOM INSPECTOR, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 10. SRI ANIL KUMAR, THE THEN CUSTOMS INSPECTOR, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 11. SRI UDAY PRASAD SINHA, THE THEN CUSTOMS INSPECTOR FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 12. SRI ANIL KUMAR SINHA, THE THEN SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 13. SRI SANJAY KUMAR, THE THEN CUSTOMS INSPECTOR, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 14. SRI BIRENDRA PRASAD, THE THEN CUSTOMS INSPECTOR, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 15. THE COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, PATNA 16. SRI K.P. MISHRA, THE THEN COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, PATNA … Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Sri Shiv Shankar Azad, Advocate For the Respondent no. 1 to 4 : Lala S.N. Raw, A.C. to G.A.-8 For the Respondents no.5&6 : Sri Bipin Kr. Sinha, S.C., C.B.I. For the Respondents no. 7&15: Smt. Archana Mukherjee, S.C. Customs Smt. Archana Sinha, Jr. S.C., Customs ------------ 2. 3.3.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the petitioner 2 professing to be acting pro-bono publico has prayed for a direction against the respondents who have allegedly misused their power and jurisdiction in their department and have resultantly caused loss of more than a crore of rupess to the Central Government of India. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has referred to certain report of the Superintendent of Police, Araria dated 13.1.1999 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Supaul/ Bhagalpur as also to a news item dated 10th of March, 2003 published in the local daily Hindustan Times, Patna Edition in the caption “Customs cop in net for graft” as also a representation of the petitioner dated 26.3.2003 to contend that the Custom Officials posted at Forbesganj were committing certain sort of irregularities in seizing vehicles with the smuggled goods. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that not only the petitioner’s claim in this regard is based on stale materials seeking to highlight an event of more than seven years back but is also not adequately supported by any firm and/or cogent materials on which it can be held that the Custom 3 Officials posted at Forbesganj have been misusing their powers. He has further highlighted that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Araria is against one particular individual, namely, Deo Nandan Mahsa about whom it has been suspected that he is indulging in smuggling and carrying the goods from Nepal to different destinations including Bhaglapur. In the opinion of this Court when there is a specific penal provision as with regard to keeping check on the smuggled/ contraband goods and also prosecuting the concerned persons in terms of sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, no direction can be given by this Court in Public Interest Litigation to take action against any particular person or concerned official of the Custom Department. It becomes clear that the petitioner in the garb of Public Interest Litigation has sought to only chosen to raise/ ventilate his personal grievance. It is also apparent from the perusal of the writ application that the petitioner has never drawn the attention of the officials of the Custom Department including the Collector of Customs at Patna and has straightway moved this Court 4 for a C.B.I. enquiry into the incidents of the year 1999- 2003 against the public servants posted in Custom Office at Forbesganj. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. Though at one point of time while hearing this petition we were inclined to impose heavy cost against the petitioner for filing a wholly fake and frivolous writ petition raising stale issues but we have restrained ourselves in doing so taking into account that such writ application came to be filed on a wholly misconceived advice and over exuberance on the part of the petitioner. That being so, we would dismiss this writ application but without any cost. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/