IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9644 of 2011 JHANTU DAS, SON OF LATE SAILEN DAS, RESIDENT OF NORTH BENGAL MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL CAMPUS, SHUSHRUTA NAGAR, P.S. MATIGARA, DISTRICT DARZLING (WEST BENGAL)…………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, ZONAL UNIT, LUCKNOW. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CAMPUS, KHAJPURA, PATNA. 4. THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CAMPUS, KHAJPURA, PATNA…………..….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate. For the respondents :Ms. Archana Meenakshee, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 07/ 12.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing Order No.02-CUS/CC/DRI/II dated 07.06.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Patna (Camp at Lucknow) (respondent no.2) under the provision of section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) by which the respondents decided to continue the investigation and extended the mandatory period for completion of investigation till December, 2011 and refused to release the consignment of the petitioner which was required to be released forthwith pursuant to order of a Bench of this Court dated 19.05.2011 (Annexure-2) passed in C.W.J.C. No.3683 of 2011 by which the - 2 - seizure itself was declared to be illegal and was quashed. 3. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it transpires that on 09.12.2010, 11200 KG (said to be 10,920 KG by the Union of India) of betel nuts in 140 bags transported on two different vehicles were seized leading to institution of DRI Case No.718(ii)05/Seiz/PRU/2010. The said seizure and the proceeding were challenged by the petitioner who is the representative of the owner of betel nuts, namely Smt. Chhaya Sarkar in C.W.J.C. No.3683 of 2011. After hearing both the parties a Bench of this court allowed the said writ petition on 19.05.2011 (Annexuxre-2) after coming to the conclusion that the very seizure of the consignment was without any authority of law and the Department of Customs had completely failed to raise any iota of doubt in the mind of the Court, based on its experience and expertise, that it had prima facie material in support of its reasonable belief that the betel nuts were of foreign origin except unfounded suspicion and hence the seizure of the consignment and the said DRI case were held to be illegal and the Department of Customs was directed to forthwith release the consignment and the vehicle of the petitioner. 4. Although the petitioner filed a representation dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure-3) before the authority concerned for releasing the betel nuts and the vehicles with a copy of the said order, but the concerned authority violated the said order of a Bench of this Court and did not release the said articles and in spite of the DRI case having been held to be illegal continued with the investigation and vide order - 3 - dated 07.06.2011 extended the period of investigation till 08.12.2011 under the provision of section 110 (2) of the Act even after having full knowledge of the earlier order of this court dated 19.05.2011. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 22.06.2011 challenging the said order. Thereafter on 23.06.2011 respondents filed L.P.A. No.928 of 2011 before a Division Bench of this Court challenging the aforementioned order dated 19.05.2011 of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3683 of 2011. 6. On 24.06.2011 the Division Bench directed the case to be listed on 29.06.2011 and as an interim measure directed that pending admission hearing of L.P.A., implementation of order dated 19.05.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3683 of 2011 shall remain stayed. However, on 30.06.2011 the L.P.A. was admitted and it was directed that pending the L.P.A., ad-interim stay granted on 24.06.2011 shall continue on the condition that the Customs Department will complete the adjudication proceeding within 10 days from the date the owner or her representative appears before the authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Division Bench had directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter, the petitioner appeared before the said authority on 01.07.2011 but when nothing was done he again appeared on 04.07.2011 and 05.07.2011 and on the last date the authority gave him a letter that he may appear before the Investigating Authority. He further submits that this was in complete violation of order of the Division Bench of this court which had directed the Adjudicating - 4 - Authority to complete the adjudication within 10 days. Hence, he submits that the respondents’ actions are completely arbitrary and perverse violating the specific directions of the Division Bench of this court, as the adjudication has not been completed till date. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that on 11.07.2011 the said L.P.A. was placed before the Division Bench which directed Smt. Chhaya Sarkar or her representative to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer on 12.07.2011 with relevant documents and the said Officer will complete the investigation within 20.07.2011 and adjudication should be completed immediately thereafter which must be reported to the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the petitioner is playing mischief by delaying the matter and by not complying the order of the Division Bench and hence I.A. No.4720 of 2011 was filed by the authorities in the L.P.A. fully describing the acts of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the provision of section 110 (2) of the Act stating that the impugned order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the authority concerned is in accordance with the specific provisions of law, hence there is no illegality therein specifically in view of opinion expressed by the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the respondents also avers that the authority concerned has even mentioned in the impugned order dated 07.06.2011 that it will be subject to the result of L.P.A. filed - 5 - against the aforesaid order of the Single Bench of this Court. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that order dated 19.05.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3683 of 2011 was binding upon the respondents authorities until it was stayed or reversed by a higher court and unless that was done, the authorities should not have disobeyed or violated the said order on the assumption that it was against any law. In the said circumstances order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the authority was in complete violation of the said order of a Bench of this court dated 19.05.2011 by which the seizure and the DRI case were held to be illegal and the consignment and vehicle were directed to be released forthwith and hence there was no occasion for the authorities to continue with the proceeding of either adjudication or investigation until the said order was stayed or reversed by a higher court. 11. It is not in dispute that L.P.A. No.928 of 2011 was filed by the authorities much thereafter on 23.06.2011 and the various orders dated 24.06.2011, 30.06.2011 and 11.07.2011 clearly show that the Division Bench was of the view that the investigation and the adjudication must be completed as early as possible and had fixed specific dates in July, 2011 for the said purpose. In the said circumstances, the impugned order of the authority concerned dated 07.06.2011 (Annexure-5) cannot legally be allowed to continue in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench specially when the Division Bench is itself fixing dates for completion of investigation - 6 - and adjudication by the authorities concerned. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned Order No.02-CUS/CC/DRI/II dated 07.06.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Patna (Camp at Lucknow) (respondent no.2) is quashed and the respondents authorities are directed to abide by the orders, which have already been passed and/or, which may be passed in future, in the above mentioned L.P.A and act accordingly. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)