Dismissed

M.Elangovan v. The Additional Commissioner

Madras HC2 Jun 2016WP/10326/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court treated the filing of this writ petition as an abuse of court process due to the petitioner's non-disclosure of a previously filed and dismissed petition regarding the same subject matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without merits.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing provisional release of seized sandalwood was not granted. No costs.

M.Elangovan Vs The Additional Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 02.6.2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.10326 of 2016

¶6

M.Elangovan ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Group-III), Customs House, Chennai-1. ...Respondent

¶9

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to provisionally release the seized sandalwood weighing about 1,786 kgs. in connection with show cause Notice in F.No.DRI/CZU/VIII/48/ENQ-01/INT-01/2014 dated 2.7.2014.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Seeni Sulthan For Respondent : Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Heard both.

¶13

Filing of the above writ petition is an abuse of process of court, as the petitioner has suppressed the filing of the earlier writ petition in W.P.No. 29744 of 2014. The subject matter of challenge in the said writ petition was to a show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proposing to confiscate the sandalwoods, which were seized. The said writ petition along with two other connected matters namely W.P.Nos.29743 and 29745 of 2014 were heard and dismissed by me by order dated 6.1.2015.

¶14

It appears that that the order dated 6.1.2015 has become final, as the petitioner has not preferred any appeal. Even in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the filing of the earlier writ petition nor stated about the order passed thereon.

¶15

The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner approached this Court again by filing another writ petition in W.P.No.33406 of 2015 seeking provisional release of the

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

sandalwoods and even in that writ petition, the order passed in W.P.No.29744 of 2014 dated 6.1.2015 was not disclosed. Therefore, this Court directed the matter to be considered on merits.

¶18

Considering the above facts, the prayer sought for

¶19

cannot be granted.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CSIV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
The Additional Commissioner
of Customs (Group-III),
Customs House, Chennai-1.
WP.No.10326 of 2016
ad(co)
aa16/06/2016

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Elangovan v. The Additional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Elangovan v. The Additional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhartiya International Limited Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner

Transcoastal Gargo & Shipping Vs The Principal Commissioner

Mrs.K.Sudha Vs The District Collector

Port and Dock Labour Union Vs The Union of India

The Principal, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.The Computer Consultants Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)