Dismissed¶17

The Principal Commissioner of Custom (Administration and Airport) v. Amit Ghosh and Ors.

Calcutta HC27 Jul 2026WP.CT/339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPCT 338/339/343 of 2024 - Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport) versus Sanjay Kumar Gond / Amit Ghosh / Ajay Kumar Gond - dismissed as infructuous on 27.07.2026 (coram: Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J. and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) because the petitioners acted upon the impugned orders: reinstatement effected and directed enquiry commenced; no order as to costs; no substantive ruling on merits; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petitions dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. ¶17

The Principal Commissioner of Custom (Administration and Airport) Vs Amit Ghosh and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

27.07.2026

rpan/ 01-03

WPCT 338 of 2024

The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport) – Versus – Shri Sanjay Kumar Gond & Others with

¶5

WPCT 339 of 2024

¶6

The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport) – Versus – Amit Ghosh & Others with

¶7

WPCT 343 of 2024 The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport) – Versus – Shri Ajay Kumar Gond & Others

¶8

Mr. Kaushik Dey, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree … for the Petitioner [in all the matters].

¶9

Mr. Ujjal Ray (through V. C.), Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Mr. Abdur Rahim

¶10

… for the Original Applicants/ Respondent no.1 [in all the matters].

¶11

Records reveal that three persons, namely, Shri Sanjay Kumar Gond, Shri Ajay Kumar Gond and Amit Ghosh preferred three original applications, being OA /350/2024/ 2021, OA/ 350 /2025 /2021 and OA /350 /832 /2023 respectively. The first two original applications were disposed of by a common order dated 14^th August, 2024 and the third original application was also disposed of by a similar order dated 14^th August 2024.

¶12

¶13

Aggrieved thereby, the above three writ petitions have been preferred by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport).

¶14

We have heard Mr. Dey learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the original applicants in the respective original applications in the present writ petitions.

¶15

We have been informed that during pendency of the present writ petitions, the applicants have been reinstated and the enquiry, as directed, was commenced by the authorities in terms of the orders impugned in the above writ petitions.

¶16

In view thereof and as the orders impugned in the above writ petitions have been acted upon by the writ petitioners, the writ petitions have become infructuous.

¶17

Accordingly, the above writ petitions, being WPCT 338 of 2024, WPCT 339 of 2024 and WPCT 343 of 2024, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶18

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶20

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)

The Principal Commissioner of Custom (Administration and Airport) v. Amit Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Commissioner of Custom (Administration and Airport) v. Amit Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Ghosh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Safiya Hasan, Repd. by Her Father Sk. Tabrikul Islam Vs Partha Pratim Chatterjee, Secretary and Anr.

Union of India Vs Sandip Maity @ Maiti

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Administration and Airport Vs Ajay Kumar Gond and Ors.

Nuruddin Molla Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sujay Bandyopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.