Mukesh Miah vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 538 Tri

                               Page - 1 of 4




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                           WP(C) No.622/2017
1. Mukesh Miah, S/o. Lt. Santi Miah, R/o Riya Bari, Udaipur, P.S. Killa,
   Dist - Gomati Tripura.
2. Rakesh Miah, S/o Lt. Santi Miah, R/o Riya Bari, Udaipur, P.S. Killa,
   Dist - Gomati Tripura.
3. Bashim Miah alias Abul Hashem, S/o Kalmat Ali, R/o Indranagar,
   Melagarh, PS - Melagarh, District - Sepahijala.
                                                   .............. Petitioner(s).

                                   Vs.

1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Department of
   Home, New Secretariat, Kunjaban, Agartala.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala District, Bishramganj.
3. The Officer-in-Charge, Bishramganj Police Station, District -
   Sepahijala.
4. Kurti Gram Panchayat, represented by the Panchayat Secretary, Kurti
   Bazaar, Kadamtala, North Tripura.
5. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Department of
   Home, New Delhi - 700 001.
6. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Amtali, Agartala.
7. The Superintendent of Customs, Bishalgarh Customs Preventive Force,
   Amtali, Tripura West.
8. Shri Sandip Das, S/o Unknown, Superintendent, Bishalgarh Customs
   Preventive Force, Amtali, Tripura West.
9. Shri Partha Munda, Inspector, DIB Unit, Sephajijala District.
                                                 .............. Respondent(s).
                                    Page - 2 of 4




                                  _B_E_ F_O_R_E_
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
      For Petitioner(s)                : Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.
      For Respondent(s)                : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asst. S. G.,
                                         Mr. Paramarth Datta, Advocate,
                                         Mr. D Sarakar, Advocate.
      Date of hearing & Judgment       : 23rd April, 2021.
      Whether fit for reporting         : No.

                       J U D G M E N T ( O R A L)

Three petitioners, claiming to be the owners of a total of 54

animals of cow progeny, have filed this petition seeking compensation of

Rs.6,23,200/- from the respondents.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

According to the petitioners, they have purchased the said cattle

from the open market under cash memos on 17th February, 2017. Petitioner

No.1 owned 16 of these cows, petitioner No.2 was owner of 11 and the

petitioner No.3 was owner of 28 cows. These cows were being transported

in 2 transport vehicles on 19th April, 2017 when these vehicles were

intercepted by the police authorities and under the suspicion that the cattle

were being smuggled across the international border, the vehicles and the

cattle were handed over to the customs authorities. The customs authorities

conducted an auction sale of these cattle on 19th April, 2017 itself on the Page - 3 of 4

ground that being livestock, it was not possible for the customs authorities

to look after them.

[3] According to the petitioners, they had approached the police

authorities with copies of the cash memos to establish their ownership of

the cattle and then orally requested for release of the cattle. The police

authorities had not accepted their request. Hence this petition.

[4] The custom authorities have filed their reply. The stand taken by

them is that the petitioners never come forward claiming the ownership of

the cattle. Show cause notices were issued to the drivers and owners of the

vehicles. The drivers and owners appeared during personal hearing before

the adjudicating authority but did not claim ownership of the cattle.

Common show cause notice issued to drivers and owners was adjudicated

by the competent authority who confiscated the seized articles namely, the

cattle as well as the vehicles. He absolutely confiscated the cattle, also

confiscated the vehicles but offered to release the vehicles on payment of

redemption fine of Rs.75,000/-. He also imposed fines on the noticees.

[5] I have perused the show cause notice dated 9th October 2017,

issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to the drivers of the

vehicles and the owners of these vehicles in which the cattle were being

transported. I have also perused the order of adjudication passed by the Page - 4 of 4

Assistant Commissioner which records that none of the noticees had filed

reply to the show cause notice but some of them had appeared during

personal hearing. The owner had claimed total ignorance about the cattle

being transported in the vehicles. The drivers had also not disclosed about

the ownership of the cattle belonging to the petitioners.

[6] The petitioners have not produced any document suggesting that

they approached in writing either the police authorities or customs

authorities claiming ownership of the cattle and requesting release thereof.

The petitioners had also not approached the Assistant Commissioner when

he was deciding the show cause notice proceedings. In a writ petition

copies of some cash memos purportedly showing purchase of the cattle by

the petitioners, would not be sufficient to ignore the order of adjudication

which was preceded by a show cause notice issued by the Assistant

Commissioner.

In the result, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Petition is

dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )

Sukehendu