HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2008 Hasmukh Harilal Parekh ... Petitioner Versus Additional Director General and Ors.. Respondents Mr. Atish D. Ray for Petitioner. Mr. L.S. Shetty with Mr. R. Ashokan for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 13, 2008 DATED: MARCH 13, 2008 DATED: MARCH 13, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner had come to this court by way of Writ Petition No. 6550 of 2007. That Petition was disposed of by order dated 6.9.2007. The grievance of the Petitioner was that though they had applied for release of the goods, that has not been done. We had directed the Petitioner to apply for release if so advised and it was for the respondents thereafter to decide the said application. The respondents by the order dated 17.10.2007 have rejected the application made by the Petitioners herein. . By the present Petition, the Petitioner has approached this court seeking relief that the respondents be directed to dispose of the goods in terms of notification No. 31/86/cus dated 5.2.1986 and for the further writ in the nature of prohibition. The order of 17.10.2007 is not subject matter of the challenge before this court. The question therefore, of going intothe legality of that order cannot be in issue in this Petition. . It is the case of the Petitioner that he has applied under section 110 of the Customs Act and considering the Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 110(A) the respondents were duty bound to dispose of the goods. The respondents have filed reply pointing out as to why such steps could not be taken. We are not concerned with the same. . Firstly the goods are the seized goods. The application by the Petitioner is under Section 110A which applies for release of goods which are seized. Section 110(1A), 110(1B) are enabling power for the authorities to take steps for disposal of the goods. Considering that the Petitioners had applied under Section 110A, the Petitioners now cannot approach this court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction seeking direction that the goods be disposed of in terms of section 110 of the Customs Act. . In our opinion, the petition is totally misplaced and this would be a fit case where we saddle cost on the Petitioner. In the light of the same, the Petitioner to pay to respondent No. 1 costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)