Bombay High Court
Sahar vs Complex on 13 October, 2010
Bench: V.C. Daga, R. M. Savant
1 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1469 OF 2006
1 Union of India through the ]
Commissioner of Customs ]
having his office at C S I Airport ]
Sahar, Andheri, Mumbai - 400 099 ]... Petitioners
versus
1 Shri Suresh L Raheja ]
an Indian Inhabitant having his ]
address at Raheja Centre Point, ]
294, CST Road, Near Mumbai
University, Off Bandra-Kurla
Complex, Santacruz (East)
]
]
]
Mumbai 400 098 ]
]
2 Smt.Meena S Raheja ]
an Indian Inhabitant having his ]
address at Raheja Centre Point, ]
294, CST Road, Near Mumbai ]
University, Off Bandra-Kurla ]
Complex, Santacruz (East) ]
Mumbai 400 098 ]
]
3 Shri Ashish S Raheja ]
an Indian Inhabitant having his ]
address at Raheja Centre Point, ]
294, CST Road, Near Mumbai ]
University, Off Bandra-Kurla ]
Complex, Santacruz (East) ]
Mumbai 400 098 ]
]
4 Shri Rahul S Raheja ]
an Indian Inhabitant having his ]
address at Raheja Centre Point, ]
294, CST Road, Near Mumbai ]
University, Off Bandra-Kurla ]
Complex, Santacruz (East) ]
Mumbai 400 098 ]
]
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:32:05 :::
2 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
5 Smt.Ekta R Raheja ]
an Indian Inhabitant having his ]
address at Raheja Centre Point, ]
294, CST Road, Near Mumbai ]
University, Off Bandra-Kurla ]
Complex, Santacruz (East) ]
Mumbai 400 098 ]
]
6 Settlement Commission, ]
Customs and Central Excise ]
Mumbai having its office at Utpad ]
Shulk Bhavan, 6th Floor, ]
Bandra-Kurla Complex, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 ]... Respondents.
Mr. P S Jetle for the Petitioner
Mr.V Sridharan i/by PDS Legal for the Respondents.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &
R.M.SAVANT,JJ.
DATE :- 13th October 2010
JUDGMENT :- [PER R M SAVANT, J.]
1 By the above Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 20.2.2006 passed by
the Settlement Commission whereby and whereunder, the Settlement
Commission settled the case of the Respondents on the following terms and
conditions :-
(a) Customs duty in the case settled at Rs.7,64,952.82;
(b) The applicant to pay 10% simple interest on the goods
already paid by the co-applicants from the date the
3 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
duty was due till it is fully paid. The Bench granted
immunity to the applicant from interest in excess of
10% per annum;
(c) Ordered confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs.
18,66,725/- CIF, which were far in excess of the total
free baggage allowance of Rs.25,000/- per passenger,
under Section 111(l) 111(m) of the Customs Act,
1962. However, the Commission permitted these
goods to be released on payment of a token fine of Rs.
1 lakh in lieu of confiscation;
(d) Granted immunity to the applicant Shri Suresh L
Raheja and to the other co-applicants from penalty
and prosecution under the Act as applicable.
2 Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary to be cited for
adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus :-
The genesis of the matter reaching the Settlement Commission
lies in the fact that on 8.6.2005, the Customs Air Intelligence Unit, CSI,
Airport, Mumbai on a specific information intercepted two passengers viz.
Suresh Raheja and his wife Smt.Meena Raheja at the Customs Exit Gate of
4 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
Terminal II A Arrival Hall, C.S.I. Airport, Sahar, Mumbai. The said two
passengers had arrived from London by Jet Airways flight No.9W 117. The
said two passengers had opted for Customs clearance through the Green
Channel. Though initially they denied that they were carrying any dutiable
goods, but on persistent questioning, Suresh Raheja disclosed that he had
purchased a watch worth Great Britain Pounds 3500 and other goods valued at
Great Britain Pounds 1500. Thereafter a detailed examination of their baggage
resulted in the recovery of dutiable goods collectively valued at Rs.10,28,878/-
CIF and Rs.20,57,756/- LMV. The said goods were seized under a
panchanama by the Customs Authorities on the reasonable belief that they
were smuggled into India and hence liable to confiscation under the provisions
of the Customs Act, 1962, (for short "the said Act"). A seizure panchanama
was accordingly drawn. From the baggage of the said two passengers,
jewellery items weighing 317.58 grams were also recovered and they were
detained for production of legal documents for their possession and valuation.
The Customs Authorities also recovered 5 VAT Refund Receipts in the name of
Suresh Raheja and Meena Raheja indicating claiming of VAT refund of Great
Britain Pounds 1651/- on a total value of goods amounting to Great Britain
Pounds 13,296/- (equivalent to Indian Rs.10.47 lakhs) at London Airport prior
to their arrival in India. 95 purchase vouchers were also recovered and it was
noticed that there was a difference of Rs.8,37,847/- between the value of
goods of Rs.18,66,725/- as per the said 95 purchase vouchers recovered from
the baggage of Suresh Raheja and his wife Meena Raheja, and the value of
5 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
actual seized goods of Rs.10,28,878/- that were recovered from them. The
statements of the said two passengers were recorded on the same day. Both of
them inter alia stated that their two sons Ashish and Rahul and daughter-in-
law Smt.Ekta R. Raheja had brought part of these goods and part of it was
consumed in London (i.e. the differential portion). The statement of Suresh
Raheja was recorded under Section 108 of the said Act as also the statement of
his wife Meena Raheja. Both admitted the factum of seizure, acquisition,
carriage, non-declaration of the goods. Further statement of Suresh Raheja was
recorded on the same day in which statement he confirmed his earlier
statement also made on the same day and, further stated that he had made
two visits abroad in 2004. The said Suresh Raheja was arrested under Section
104 of the said Act for the offences committed under Section 135 of the said
Act. He was produced before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mumbai, when he was released on bail on 9.6.2005 in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/-. On the same day the said Suresh Raheja submitted a demand
draft of Rs.5,00,000/- as a pre-deposit against the duty, fine penalty, if any, in
respect of the goods seized.
It appears that on 13.6.2005, further statement of Suresh Raheja
was recorded under Section 108 of the said Act, in which statement he stated
that he would produce documentary evidence with regard to the detained
jewellery. The said detained jewellery was valued at Rs.3,00,000/- by the
Customs Appraiser under a panchanama, in presence of the said Suresh Raheja
and his associate and in presence of two independent witnesses.
6 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
Further statement of the said Suresh Raheja was recorded on
17.6.2005 wherein he accepted the valuation of detained jewellery at Rs.
3,00,000/- and further admitted that he and his family members had taken
foreign currency totalling Euros 7,000/-, Great Britain Pounds 18,310/- and
UAE Dirhams 1000/-. The statements of Ashish and Rahul were also recorded
wherein they had gone to abroad and had returned on 7.6.2005 and 1.6.2005
respectively.
It appears that Suresh Raheja vide his letter dated 17.6.2005
addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Customs, AIU, claimed that the seized
Techno Marine Watch was worn by him and that all the items seized were used
and hence no duty was leviable on them. The contentions made in the said
letter dated 17.6.2005 were rebutted by the department stating that the
Techno Marine watch was recovered from the baggage and, the wrist which
was worn by Suresh Raheja was returned to Suresh Raheja.
Thereafter a statement of one Jayantilal M Thadeshwar, Manager
of M/s. D N Mehta Jewellers was recorded on 13.7.2005, in which statement,
the said Thadeshwar confirmed that two cash memos produced by Shri Raheja
for the detained jewellery were genuine and the payment for the same was
made by cheque. The said Thadeshwar submitted copies of cash memo,
cheque, copy of statement of the Bank, copies of purchase and sale register etc.
7 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
The statement of one Arvind Y Sawant, Cashier of M/s. Pheroze
Framroze & ?Co. Pvt. Ltd was also recorded on 15.7.2005 in which satement
the said Arvind Sawant confirmed that the cash memos submitted by Shri S L
Raheja for purchase of the subject foreign currency under enquiry were
genuine and they belonged to his company. Further statement of the said
Thadeshwar was recorded on 22.7.2005 wherein he stated that Suresh Reheja
was introduced to him by one Anup Kapoor of Punjab Jewellers and the said
jewellery was made by his workders on order and design furnished by the
Rahejas.
The statement of Ms.Ekta Raheja, wife of Rahul Raheja, was
recorded under Section 108 of the said Act on 06.10.2005 wherein she denied
the knowledge regarding the goods worth Rs.8 lakhs (i.e. the difference
between the value in the purchase vouchers recovered and the actual value of
seized goods in the instant case). She also denied of having brought these
goods into India by her and by her husband.
3 Consequent to the investigation done by the department, a show
cause notice dated 20.10.2005 was issued to five noticees for their role in the
smuggling of dutiable goods and confiscation of goods and penal action under
the said Act. The gravamen of the said show cause notice can be culled out
from Para 31 and 32 and the charges levelled against the Respondents can be
8 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
seen from Para 39 of the said show cause notice, which are reproduced herein
under :-
Para 31 :- As per Appendix A to the Baggage Rules, 1998
notified vide notification No.30/98-Customs (NT) dated
2.6.98 (as amended) the articles allowed free of duty
admissible to a passenger is Rs.25,000/- for import of new
articles in accompanied baggage. The goods in excess of Rs.
25,000/- attract Customs duty @ 35% in terms of notification
No.136/90 Customs dated 20.3.1990 & Education Cess of 2%
on the amount of Customs duty as per notification No.
69/2004 Customs dated 9.7.2004.
Para 32 :- From the foregoing it is evident that Shri
Suresh L. Raheja and Smt. Meena S Raheja had imported
duitable goods and had failed to declare the same to Customs
on arrival as required under section 77 of the Customs Act,
1962 with an intention to evade Customs duty leviable on the
said goods. Further both Shri Suresh L Raheja and Smt.
Meena S. Raheja admitted the non declaration, possession,
carriage, recovery and seizure of the goods from their
baggage and also that they had declared their baggage
through green channel. Shri Sureh L Raheja and Smt. Meena
S Raheja have travelled abroad many times before and
should have been aware/fully conversant with the quantum
of free allowance admissible to them and also should have
known that goods collectively worth more than Rs.25,000/-
is chargeable to duty. Further it is also seen that the value of
certain goods brought by them are individually worth more
than Rs.25,000/- and as such their contention that they were
not aware that they had to declare these goods and pay duty
on them is not sustainable. Thus is appears that the main
reason not to declare the goods was to avoid payment of
Customs duty. Also it is seen that some of the goods imported
by them like cosmetics, toiletries, apparels etc appear to be in
trade quantity.
Para 39 :- In view of the above, Shri Suresh L Raheja,
Smt. Meena S Raheja, Shri Ashish S Raheja, Shri Rahul S
Raheja and Smt. Ekta R Raheja are hereby called upon to
Show Cause in writing to the Joint/Additional Commissioner
of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Sahar,
Mumbai, within 30 days of the receipt of this notice, as to
why :-
9 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
1) The aforesaid seized dutiable goods valued at Rs.
10,28,878/- (CIF) and Rs.20,57,756/- (LMV) should not be
confiscated under Section 111(d) & (1) of the Customs Act,
1962;
2) The seized studded gold jewellery weighing 317.58 grams
and totally valued at Rs.3,00,000/- should not be confiscated
under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962;
(3) The aforesaid goods valued at Rs.8,37,847/- that have
been clandestinely cleared and are not available now, should
not be confiscated under section 111(d) and (1) of the
Customs Act, 1962; and
(4) Penalty should not be imposed on each of them under
Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962"
4 It appears that after the deluge in Mumbai on 26.7.2005 the
sealed packages in which the seized goods were kept were examined on
26.10.2005 in the presence of Respondents/Representatives and two witnesses
under a Panchanama when it was found that most of the items including the
writ watches and jewellery were found to be soaked and in wet condition.
Respondent No.1 Suresh Raheja and the Co-noticees i.e. the Respondent Nos. 2
to 5 herein approached the Settlement Commission under Section 127(B)(1)
of the Customs Act by filing separate applications viz. Application No.
SC/WZ/CUS/207-211/2005 on 21.11.2005. By the said Applications, the
Respondents sought grant of immunity from imposition of penalty and
prosecution under the provisions of the said Act.
To the said Applications, the department filed its
submissions/contentions against the admission of the said Applications, and
10 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
the principal contention was that non-maintainability of the Applications under
Section 127(B) of the said Act.
The Settlement Commission by the common impugned order
dated 20/2/2006 allowed the said Applications.
In view of the ground raised by the Department of the non-
maintainability of the Applications under section 127(B) of the said Act, the
Settlement Commission recorded a specific finding that the applicant fulfills all
the conditions laid down in Section 127(B)(1) of the Act and, further recorded
that it accordingly allows all the applications to be proceeded with under
Section 127(C)(1) of the Act. The Settlement Commission also recorded a
statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that the goods
other than the watch and the studded gold jewellery are already destroyed in
the deluge and that the case should be finally disposed of. The Settlement
Commission, therefore, directed to settle all the cases under Section 127(C)(1)
of the Act on the following terms and condition :-
Customs duty : The Customs duty in the case is settled at Rs.
7,64,952.82/-. The applicant has already deposited an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The applicant shall pay the balance
amount within 30 days of receipt of this order and submit
proof thereof to the Commission and the Revenue
Interest :- This is a case wherein an attempt was made to
clear the imported baggage goods/the baggage goods already
removed without payment of Customs duty due thereon by
11 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
not declaring them by the applicants at the time of arrival in
India. They are, therefore, liable to pay interest. However,
keeping in view the co-operative attitude of the applicants in
the proceedings, the Commission orders the applicant to pay
10% Simple Interest on the goods already cleared by the co-
applicants from the date the duty was due till it is full paid.
The Bench grants immunity to the applicant from interest in
excess of 10% per annum. The Revenue shall calculate the
amount of interest as ordered aforesaid within 15 days of the
payment of the balance duty amount as ordered above and
communicate to the applicant, who thereupon would pay it
within the next 15 days. The applicant shall furnish proof of
payment of interest, both to the Commission and the
Revenue.
Fine :- The Bench observes that the total goods brought by
the applicants were valued at Rs.18,66,725/- (CIF) which
were far in excess of the total free baggage allowance @ Rs.
25,000/- for each passenger. Therefore the seized goods are
liable for confiscation. We take note of the fact that the
studded gold jewellery was of Indian origin which had been
exported without declaration and without obtaining Export
Certificate. Further we also take note of the fact that the
goods other than the seized watch and studded gold jewellery
have been damaged and destroyed, which are still in the
custody of the Revenue and which fact has been admitted by
the Revenue during the hearing. Taking these facts into
consideration, we ordere confiscation of the seized goods
under Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Act, but permit them
to be released on payment of token fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in
lieu of confiscation.
Penalty & Prosecution :- The Bench grants immunity to the
applicant and the co-applicants from penalty and prosecution
under the Act as applicable.
As indicated above, it is this order dated 20.2.2006 which is impugned
in the instant Petition.
12 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
5 Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner/Revenue
a) That the Settlement Commission has erred in equating the gate passes
of Suresh L Raheja and other Respondents as specified under Section 77 of the
said Act with the Bill of Entry. The Settlement Commission ought to have seen
that since no Bill of Entry was filed, the Applications were not maintainable
under Section 127B of the Act;
b)
That the Settlement Commission totally mis-interpreted the judgment of
this Court in Writ Petition No.2430 of 2004 and further erroneously relief upon
the cases of Shri Mahesh Raj and Anil Prasad Nanda;
c) That the Settlement Commission ought to have seen that the provisions
of Section 123 of the said Act were applicable to the seized wrist watches;
d) That the Settlement Commission erred in not appreciating the fact that
applicant had failed to discharge the burden of proof cast under Section 123 of
the said Act;
e) That the Settlement Commission ought to have rejected the
Applications as hit by 3rd proviso to Section 123(1) of the said Act.
13 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
6 Submissions on behalf of the Respondents :-
i) That the Appellant could not invoke Section 123 of the said Act as the
same has not been invoked in the show cause notice;
ii) That the watch is a personal effect for the purposes of the Baggage
Rules, 1998 and, therefore, two watches brought by the Respondents into India
could be classified as personal effects and therefore are not exigible to duty;
iii)
That the contents of the Panchanama dated 8.6.2005 show that the
foreign origin watch was not found in its original packing and the Settlement
Commission in its order dated 20.2.2006 has categorically recorded that the
customs department has admitted that the foreign origin watch was not in its
original packing. The irresistible conclusion was therefore that the watches in
question were used personal effects;
iv) That exemption contained in Appendix-A will apply to both the
watches;
v) That since there is no dispute that the jewellery was of Indian origin,
the said jewellery can therefore be said to be imported into India after
exported the same out of India and, therefore, qauntified for exemption under
Notification No.94/96-Customs;
14 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
vi) That Section 111 is not applicable as the said section applies to
any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not entered in the baggage
declaration made in terms of Section 77;
vii) That in the instant case, the Respondent No.1 and his wife in the
disembarkation card had left the column blank in respect of "total value of
dutiable goods being imported" under the bonafide belief that the used
personal effects carried as personal baggage were not liable to duty;
viii)
That Section 123 of the said Act is not at all attracted to the
present case for the reasons that it is not in dispute that the jewellery which
was the part of the goods was of Indian origin and during the investigation
itself proof of purchase of Jewellery from India was produced before the
department;
ix) That in so far as watches are concerned, there is no dispute that
one watch was of foreign origin and the other was of Indian origin and, the
panchanama drawn at the time of seizure also mentions that these goods were
brought into India by the Respondents as baggage;
x) That there was no question of discharging burden imposed by
Section 123 of the said Act as there is no dispute about the origin of the goods
when the Respondents arrived in India.
15 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
xi) That the bar contained in the proviso to Section 127B would not
apply to the goods whose origin is not in dispute ;
xii) That Department has accepted the order and has released
baggage pursuant to the said order of the Settlement Commission.
CONSIDERATION :
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
bestowed our anxious consideration to their rival contentions.
8 It is an undisputed fact that in the present case, in the show
cause notice there is no mention of Section 123 of the said Act and, therefore,
the said provision has not been invoked by the Customs Authorities against the
Respondents. It is further required to be borne in mind that in so far origin of
the goods is concerned, there is no dispute in respect of both the jewellery as
well as the watches. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the
Respondents had failed to discharge the burden cast by Section 123 of the said
Act is mis-founded. Once the origin of the goods was not in dispute, the
Respondents as held by the Settlement Commission were entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission and, therefore, the bar contained in
the proviso to Section 127B could not have come in their way. The finding of
the Settlement Commission in the aforesaid factual background that the
16 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
Respondents herein, who were the Applicants before the Settlement
Commission, fulfill all the conditions laid down in Section 127(B)(1) of the
said Act, can be said to be a possible view in the said factual background.
It is also required to be noted that the contention of the Revenue
that the baggage goods are out side the purview of the Settlement Commission
has not been entertained by the Settlement Commission on the application of
the order of this Court dated 21.7.2005 in Writ Petition No.2430 of 2004 in the
case of Union of India v/s. M/s. Hoganas India Ltd. wherein this Court has
held that the Settlement Commission has got jurisdiction to deal with the cases
of smuggling. However, the Applicant must satisfy the mandatory requirement
of Section 127(B)(1) of the said Act and the order does not make any
reference to the baggage or baggage declaration. The Settlement Commission
by relying upon the case of Mahesh Raj reported in 2001 (131) ELT 707 (SC)
wherein it has been held that non-filing of Bill of Entry for imported goods
cannot be a factor affecting the admission of the applications when filing of
Bill of Entry is not contemplated in law for clearance of baggage goods. The
Settlement Commission was further of the view that the declaration made by a
passenger on the Customs portion of disembarkation card meets the
requirement of filing a declaration. The Settlement Commission in the
background of the fact that the orders which it had relied upon in the case of
Anil Prasad Nanda and in the case of Manish Kalvadiya having not been
challenged by the department, was of the view that the contention of the
17 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
Revenue that the baggage cases are not entertainable by the Settlement
Commnission was untenable. It is also required to be noted that during the
course of the investigation, the Respondents had paid an amount of Rs.Five
lakhs towards duty payable and thereafter had filed the application before the
Settlement Commission. It would also be of some significance to note that the
goods in question were affected by the deluge that took place in Mumbai on
26.7.2005 and the entire baggage was affected by floods and the watches and
jewellery had also become wet on account of water seeping through baggage.
In the said circumstances, the Respondents had pleaded that the applications
to be proceeded with under Section 127C(1) of the said Act. The Settlement
Commission in the said facts and circumstances, settled the case under Section
127C(1) of the said Act by directing payment of duty in the sum of Rs.
7,64,952.82 with simple interest at 10% p.a. and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu
of confiscation. The Settlement Commission, however, granted immunity to
the Respondents from penalty and prosecution.
9 After the impugned order came to be passed on 20.2.2006, the
Respondents herein tendered the balance of the amount of the duty payable
i.e. Rs.2,64,952.82 and Rs.1,00,000/- as also Rs.34,010/- i.e. interest payable
by three separate pay orders. The said pay orders were initially not accepted
by the department, however, after some correspondence, the Respondents
tendered three fresh pay orders in favour of the Commissioner of Customs ,
AIU, Mumbai as requested by the Petitioner by letter dated 17.7.2006. It
18 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
appears that the Petitioner has accepted the said pay orders and realised the
proceeds of the said pay orders. Thereafter the Respondent No.1 called upon
the Petitioner vide his letter dated 8.8.2006 addressed to the Joint
Commissioner, Customs, to release the goods as per the order of the Settlement
Commission. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs vide his letter dated
19.8.2006 informed the Respondent No.1 to collect the baggage from his office
and for that purpose to contact the Suprintendent of Customs, Investigation
Cell. In pursuance of the said letter dated 19.8.2006, the son of Respondent
No.1 by name Rahul collected the baggage on 23.8.2006.
the said order of the Settlement Commission has already been implemented
As can be seen
and complied with as long back as on 23.8.2006.
10 Though various contentions have been raised on behalf of the
Revenue as to whether the Respondents were at all entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission on the ground that the Respondents
did not fulfill the pre-requisites for approaching the Settlement Commission,
in our view, it is not necessary for us to go into the said
submissions/contentions in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above.
11 Assuming for the sake of argument that the matter is required to
be dealt with de novo by the Customs Authorities, the learned counsel for the
Respondents submitted that in so far as duty leviable is concerned, there can
be no change in the same as the Respondents have paid the full duty leviable
19 W.P.NO.1469 of 2006
as also the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest of Rs.34,010/- . The said
statement of the learned counsel for the Respondents was not disputed by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner herein i.e. the Revenue. However, the
learned counsel for the Petitioner/Revenue contended that the issue is one of
jurisdiction and not of practicalities. In our view, considering the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, which we have set out herein above and
considering the fact that there would be no impact on the duty recoverable
from the Respondents in respect of the goods in question merely because
exercise of jurisdiction by the Settlement Commission can be said to be
debatable, it is not necessary for us to go into the said aspect and reach a
conclusion that the order of the Settlement Commission is required to be set
aside and the matter is required to be relegated back to the authorities for
being dealt with in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the view that it is necessary to give a quietus to the matter
which has sufficiently prolonged since the year 2006. In that view of the
matter, no case for interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made
out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed and Rule discharged with
no order as to costs.
(R.M.SAVANT,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)
