Disposed

Sri Radhakrishnan Kandan, v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Madras HC3 Apr 2023WP/1899/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2019 regarding the return of his Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card seized during customs inspection, directing them to pass orders on merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondents shall consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Sri Radhakrishnan Kandan, Vs Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1899 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.1899 of 2020

¶7

Sri Radhakrishnan Kandan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Airport & Air Cargo Complex, New Custom House, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027.

¶10

Assistant Immigration Officer, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶11

Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home affairs, Foriegners's Division, Major Dayan Chand National Stadium, India Gate Circle, New Delhi – 110 002. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation / reply dated 19.09.2019 and forthwith to release the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card bearing No.143287 and for consequential orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Karunanithi

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran Senior standing counsel for R1

¶15

ORDER

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶17

W.P.No.1899 of 2020

¶18

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation / reply dated 19.09.2019 and forthwith to release the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card bearing No.143287 and for consequential orders.

¶19

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Indian origin but Srilankan National and was issued with Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card bearing No.143287 by the Government of India. The petitioner came to India for the purpose of seeing his parents and when he was bound to return to Colombo, Srilanka with Srilankan passport bearing number N7738454 along with OCI card, the officers of customs intercepted the petitioner and examined one black color hand baggage resulting in recovery of 5900 US Dollars. The seizure made by the customs was not declared and a case was registered in OS.No.386/2018-AIU. The first respondent apprehended the petitioner's OCI card and the same was handed over to the second respondent, who in turn directed the petitioner to approach the second respondent for return of OCI card. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had given written submissions to the first respondent in connection with the said case and an order was passed by the first repsondent on 31.01.2019 for absolute

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶21

W.P.No.1899 of 2020

¶22

confication of currency and also imposed the personal penalty of Rs.40,000/-

¶23

under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Chennai, who passed an order to release the foreign currency to the tune of Rs.4,24,505/- on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.1,10,000/- while upholding the personal penalty of Rs.40,000/-. After deposition of the redemption fine and personal penalty, the seized currecy was released to the petitioner, but the OCI card was not returned. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 04.06.2019 seeking to return the OCI card, but the third respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 06.09.2019 as to why the OCI card should not be cancelled, for which the petitioner has addressed the third respondent vide reply / representation dated 19.09.2019 to release the OCI card, but no orders have been passed. Hence the present writ petition.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the beneficiary is not the party in this writ petition it would suffice if this Court issues a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2019 and pass appropriate orders within the time frame that may be

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶26

W.P.No.1899 of 2020

¶27

fixed by this Court.

¶28

4. Learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent has no objection for the said order being passed.

¶29

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case directs the petitioner to send a copy of the representation dated 19.09.2019 and also a copy of this order to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondents shall consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2019 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.

¶30

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

03.04.2023

¶32

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non speaking order Netrual Citation Case : Yes / No (rap)

¶33

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶35

W.P.No.1899 of 2020

¶36

Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Airport & Air Cargo Complex, New Custom House, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027.

¶37

Assistant Immigration Officer, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶38

Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home affairs, Foriegners's Division, Major Dayan Chand National Stadium, India Gate Circle, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

W.P.No.1899 of 2020

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rap

W.P.No.1899 of 2020

¶44

03.04.2023

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Sri Radhakrishnan Kandan, v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Radhakrishnan Kandan, v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs

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

R.Kunthavai Devi Vs Subithalakshmi

V.Krishnamurthy Vs The Airport Authority of India

R.Sarada Vs Selvam

Sheik Peer Mohammed Khaderi Dharga Vs The Tamil Nadu wakf Board

M.Mahendran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Muniraj Vs The Superintendent of Engineer