1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2008 ANSUYA RAMESH MITHANI .. PETITIONER Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. B. J. Raichandani for petitioner Mr. A. S.Rao i/b Suresh Kumar for respondents CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE: 17/2/2009 P.C. . Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The petitioner is the widow of one Ramesh Kumar Babulal Mithani. On 17/7/94, Officers of Customs Airport Collectorate NIPT Sahar intercepted him on suspicion. His personal search resulted in the recovery inter alia of 8 packets wrapped in adhesive tapes which were found to contain totally 40 gold bars of ten tolas each and totally weighing 4664 grams valued at Rs.21,40,776/-. On 7/10/94 2 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner’s husband which was replied by him. 3. The Additional Collector of Customs adjudicated the case and directed absolute confiscation of goods and personal penalty of Rs.20,000/- was imposed. The appeal filed by the petitioner’s husband was rejected. The petitioner’s husband filed a revision before the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The Joint Secretary confirmed the confiscation with option to the petitioner’s husband to redeem the gold on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs, payment of duty and personal penalty, by his order dated 13/4/99. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that she approached the 6th respondent’s office expressing her inclination to redeem the gold. However, the officers did not respond to her request. She and her husband then wrote letters to the respondents requesting that the Joint Secretary’s order dated 13/4/99 be implemented. The respondents sent reply dated 16/2/06 informing the petitioner that the gold was disposed of in January, 1995 and sales proceeds of Rs.21,72,447/- were realized. The petitioner was informed that as per the order dated 3 13/4/99 passed by the Joint Secretary, the gold has been allowed to be released on payment of fine of Rs.5 lacs and payment of appropriate duty along with personal penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed vide Order-in-Original dated 20/11/95. The petitioner was further informed that her total liability for release of the gold as per Annexure ’A’ to the letter comes to Rs.3,23,193/-. The petitioner was informed that she is required to pay Rs.3,23,193/- to conclude the case logically. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged non-implementation of the order dated 13/4/99 passed by the Joint Secretary and is seeking direction to the respondent to offer to the petitioner equivalent quantity of gold. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the respondents have illegally sold the gold in January, 1995. The were duty bound to implement the order of the Joint Secretary allowing the petitioner to redeem the gold. He submitted that in the circumstances appropriate directions be issued to the respondents. 6. It is not possible to accept the submissions of learned Counsel. The order of the Joint Secretary 4 is dated 13/4/99. According to the petitioner for the implementation of the said order the petitioner and her husband wrote letters to the respondents in the year 2005. There is no reason why the petitioner should not have approached the respondents earlier. The petitioner’s case that the petitioner had approached the respondents for implementation of the order at his office does not stand to reason. Moreover the petitioner has filed the instant petition as late as in January, 2008. 7. In his affidavit-in-reply Vinay Kumar Assistant Commissioner of Customs has stated that during the tendency of the proceedings due to falling prices of gold, the Government of India had taken the decision to sell the gold. 8. In our opinion, no case is made out by the petitioner for grant of relief and this belated petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE