Disposed

Doki Sreeramulu v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bbsr

Orissa HC20 Feb 2024WP(C)/19442/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs sought quashing of a confiscation order and return of seized gold from a 1975 seizure. Since an earlier writ petition by Petitioner No.1 challenging the same order was disposed of with liberty to appeal, the Court declined to examine merits and granted similar liberty to pursue appellate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to pursue remedy before the Appellate Authority raising all grounds; no merits decided.

Doki Sreeramulu Vs Collector of Central Excise and… — Customs and Excise | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.19442 of 2023

¶3

Doki Sreeramulu & Others …. Petitioners Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A.A. Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Collector of Central Excise & Opposite Parties Customs, Bhubaneswar & Others

¶6

Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel for Central Excise & Customs Department

¶7

CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
Order No. 20.02.2024
D. Dash, J.
05. This matter is taken up through hybrid

¶8

Order No.

¶9

arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

¶10

2. The Petitioners, by filing this writ petition have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thereunder to quash the confiscation proceeding under section 71 of the Gold

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

(Control) Act, 1968 as was in force on 19.04.75, the date of seizure of the gold slab in the form of biscuit with foreign marks, primary gold pieces and gold ornaments leading to the launching of the prosecution, which came to be tried and disposed of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam at Berhampur, in 2(C) C.C. Case No.34 of 1976.

¶13

The Petitioners have further prayed for return of the seized gold ornaments etc. after quashing the order dated on 11.11.2013 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in seisin of the confiscation proceeding whereby the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of Sri Doki Janardan Swamy, the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners was not accepted and the order dated 13.01.2014 whereby the seized primary gold and gold ornaments have been confiscated under 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 with the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- each to be paid by Sri Doki Janardan Swamy, the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners and Sri Doki Sreeramulu, the present Petitioner No.1 under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

¶14

Page 2 of 6

¶15

3. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.A. Mishra, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Excise and Customs Department.

¶16

4. Keeping in view the submissions made, the record being perused, it has come to surface that Sri Doki Janardan Swamy, the predecessor-in-interest of these Petitioners challenging the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the confiscation proceeding refusing to accept the Vakalatnama had filed a writ petition, which stood numbered as W.P.(C) No.24550 of 2013. The present Petitioner No.1, namely, Sri Doki Sreeramulu, who is one of the legal representatives of said Doki Janardan Swamy, who was also an accused with his father Doki Janardan Swamy and faced the trial in 2(C) C.C. Case No.34 of 1976 and noticed in that confiscation proceeding had filed another writ petition which was numbered as W.P.(C) No.24549 of 2013.

¶17

The writ petition No.24449 of 2013 was disposed of permitting this Petitioner No.1 to withdraw the same and file better petition incorporating all the new facts and

¶18

Page 3 of 6

¶19

contentions therein. After disposal of that, the other writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.24550 of 2013 filed by Sri Doki Janardan Swamy, the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners was also disposed of on 16.05.2023 in terms of that order passed in W.P. (C) No.24549 of 2013.

¶20

After the disposal of the two writ petitions as aforestated, Sri Doki Sreeramulu, who is the Petitioner No.1 in the present writ petition filed W.P.(C) No.13102 of 2023, which is said to have been filed in its individual capacity whereas the present Petitioners are the legal heirs and successors of Sri Doki Janardan Swamy which include the sole Petitioner of W.P.(C) No.13102 of 2023.

¶21

5. Perusal of the record reveals that in the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.13102 of 2023, the present Petitioner No.1 had very much questioned the order dated 13.01.2014 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, i.e., Opposite Party No.1 which is also the subject matter of present writ petition filed by the legal heirs and successors of Sri Doki Janardan Swamy, who too had faced the criminal trial as well as the confiscation proceeding with his son Sri Doki Sreeramulu. That W.P.(C)No.13102 of 2023

¶22

Page 4 of 6

¶23

has been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 18.05.2023 by following order:-

¶24

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, as it appears the order dated 13.01.2014 under Anneuxre-11, which is sought to be quashed is appealable one. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appellate authority, if he so desires, by raising the grounds as has been raised in the writ petition or by raising any new grounds, if any, and in such event, the authority shall do well to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. ”

¶25

6. In view of the above developments and state of affairs, when the Petitioner No.1 of the present writ petition has been granted the liberty to pursue his remedy before the Appellate Authority, if he so desires by raising the grounds as raised in the writ petition, we at this stage are not inclined to delve into the merit of the case touching upon the sustainability of the order of confiscation proceeding passed on 13.01.2014 under Anneuxre-12, quashment of the said proceeding and release of seized gold plates, ornaments etc.

¶26

Page 5 of 6

¶27

We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition granting the liberty to the Petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Authority, if they so desire by raising all such grounds and contentions with the observation that in that event the Appellate Authority would do well to consider and dispose of the Appeal in accordance with

¶28

law.

¶29

Himansu

¶30

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
(D. Dash)
Judge

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Feb-2024 20:13:40

¶33

Page 6 of 6

Doki Sreeramulu v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doki Sreeramulu v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S the National Small Industries Corp. Ltd., Bbsr Vs Chief Commnr., Commercial Tax and Gst, Odisha, Cuttack

Ashish Mohanty Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

M/S. Sura Construction, Ganjam Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Ganjam

Jdl Lime Stone and Dolomite Mines, Sundargarh Vs State of Odisha

Rasananda Basti Vs State of Odisha

Sanjeba Kumar Patnaik Vs State of Odisha