THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17031 of 2010 Dated:10.08.2010 Between: Mohammed Khader Hussain. …Petitioner and The Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad-II, Commissionerate II Floor, Cls., Building Annexe, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad-500 001. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17031 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) Mohammed Khader Hussain, S/o.Mohd.Akber Hussain, resident of H.No.17-1-30/7/26, Ramachandra Nagar, Madannapet, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad, filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of a summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Be it noted, the summons is addressed to one Mohd.Javeed, S/o.Shri Mohd.Akber Hussain, H.No.17-1-30/7/26, Ramachandra Nagar, Edi Bazar, Madannapet, Hyderabad. The case of the petitioner is that he is a humble person eking out livelihood honourably with a family of a wife and four children. He was picked up by the Police on 20.06.2010 in connection with a complaint lodged by M/s.Everyday Products, manufacturers and sellers of gutka in the brand name of “Goa 1000”. The complaint was that the petitioner was making imitation brand gutka “Goa 1000” and passing off the “goods” in violation of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He was produced before the concerned Magistrate competent to take cognizance, and later released on bail. Be that as it is, the Department of Customs and Central Excise conducted investigation and found that Mohd.Javeed was conducting business evading payment of central excise duty in contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, pursuant to the enquiry/investigation, the impugned summons was issued to Mohd.Javeed to appear either in person or through an authorized agent on 09.07.2010. The petitioner, who admittedly is in hiding after obtaining bail, is before this Court aggrieved by the summons. The Counsel for the petitioner vociferously pleads that Mohd.Javeed to whom summons had been addressed is a person altogether different from Mohammed Khader Hussain. He would request this Court to virtually declare that the petitioner herein, Mohammed Khader Hussain, is not the same person to whom summons is addressed. Even adopting a liberal approach, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such a declaration cannot be granted by this Court. The petitioner, who claims to hold unimpeachable evidence that he is Mohammed Khader Hussain and not Mohd.Javeed, can approach the summoning authority and place the necessary material to prove his version. Except such an observation, no relief can be granted in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 10.08.2010 vs