IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9900 of 2011 1. Muchipara Consumers’s Co-operative Stores Limited, West Bengal through its Manager, Haripada Das, Address-16, Sashi Bhusan Dey Street, Kolkata-700012. 2. Haripada Das , the Manager, of Muchipara Consumers’s Co- operative Stores Limited, s/o late Prafulla Krishna, Address-16, Sashi Bhusan Dey Street, Kolkata-700012. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the Commissioner of Customs, Patna 2. The Commissioner of Customs, C.R. Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Customs HQRS, C.R. Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, (Disposal), Customs HQRS, C.R. Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 5. The Assistant Commissioner, (Disposal ),Customs HQRS, C.R. Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 6. The Superintendent (Disposal ),Customs HQRS, C.R. Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 7. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Preventive Division, Muzaffarpur. …………………….Respondents --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kameshwar Mishra & Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mrs. Archana Meenakshi,Sr. S.C. ------- 12/ 09.09.2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for directing the respondents to immediately release and deliver the Betel Nuts to petitioner no.1 as they have been purchased by them after E-Auction held by the respondents and the entire auction amount has been deposited by the petitioners including all the taxes and VAT, but inspite of that they are kept at Muzaffarpur godown of the respondents contained in lot no. 143/UC/09 and are not being released and delivered to petitioner no.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 2 petitioner no.1 is a registered Co-operative Society bearing registration no. 80/CAL/1976 under the provisions of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act dealing with custom goods, auction goods apart from other works duly notified by the Customs bearing notification no. 745 dated 10.08.1988 and petitioner no. 2 is its Manager. He also stated that on 25.04.2010 a public notice was published by the respondents in daily news paper Hindustan informing that E-Auction of confiscated goods was going to be held on 10.05.2010 to 13.05.2010 and inviting interested persons to file their sealed tenders at different offices of the respondents for purchase of the seized/confiscated goods lying in Customs godowns at Patna, Muzaffarpur, Raxaul, Motihari and Jogbani on ‘as is where is basis’ and this included confiscated betel nuts apart from plastic granules, silk yarn, multi colour offset printing machine, iron scrap, industrial salt, chemicals, dye colour powder etc. In the said notice, it was specifically mentioned that with regard to betel nuts, tests of PFA and PQ would have to be done after any one succeeded in the bid but before its lifting, costs of which would be borne by the successful bidder. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further claimed that petitioners participated in the E-Auction and made highest offer of Rs. 10,43,750.00 for the cut betel nuts weighing 25000 kgs. kept in Muzaffarpur Customs Division Godown and their offer was accepted by the respondent-authorities, who vide letter dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure 2) informed petitioner no.1 and directed it to deposit Rs.2,60,938.00 as security deposit with Chief Accounts 3 Officer, Customs (HQRS), Patna. Petitioner no.1 deposited the said security deposit amount within the time prescribed and further intimated the respondents by letter dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure 3) that it was depositing the amount of Rs.10,43,750.00 by Pay Order, whereas, it would deposit the VAT directly to the principal. 4. After completion of all the aforesaid formalities, the respondents issued delivery order vide letter dated 26.05.2010 (Annexure 4) with a stipulation that the VAT might be collected before effecting delivery. Immediately thereafter petitioner no.1 deposited the value added tax amounting to Rs.41,750.00 with the Government of Bihar, but inspite of all the aforesaid compliances, the said betel nuts in question were not released and delivered to petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.1 being a bona fide purchaser has been deprived for so long with respect to its legally purchased articles. 5. So far the quality of the betel nuts in question is concerned, it is stated that it failed in the first test at Raxaul, but subsequently it succeeded in the second test held at Kolkata on 02.08.2010 (Annexure 7). In the said circumstances, the respondents told Petitioner no.1 that possession was not being delivered to it only because an interim order had been passed by this Court on 06.08.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 12672 of 2010, in which it was noted that respondents counsel had stated that the Department did not intend to put up the betel nuts for auction sale at present. He, thus, submits that this cannot be a ground for depriving petitioner no.1 from its legally purchased goods. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that E-Auction was held in accordance with law and the Kolkata Laboratory by its final test report of the lot of the item concerned cleared it as unadulterated and fit for human consumption, but the said goods were not being released and delivered to petitioner no.1 because a connected matter is pending in this Court, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 12672 of 2010, which has been filed by one Mohan Goswami for restraining the respondents from selling the said items and an interim order has been passed therein on 06.08.2010. 7. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that in effect the respondents are not denying the claim of petitioner no.1 as they are claiming that E-Auction and the process of selection were legal and proper, due to which they accepted the entire amount from petitioner no.1 and issued delivery order in its favour. The only plea of the respondents is that the connected C.W.J.C. No. 12672 of 2010, in which an interim order has been passed, is pending and it has a direct bearing on the instant writ petition. Hence the main aspect to be seen by this Court is as to whether the advertisement/auction process and selection involved in this case are affected by the result of C.W.J.C. No. 12672 of 2010. 8. Now the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 12672 of 2010 has been dismissed and hence the sole excuse of the respondents for not releasing and delivering the betel nuts in question to petitioner no.1 has gone and they are duty bound to conclude the entire process of 5 auction and selection etc. by releasing and delivering the goods in question to petitioner no.1 as it has already deposited the entire amounts due. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)