Dismissed

Geethala Reddy Prasad Reddy v. Union of India

Telangana HC6 Dec 2023WP/32317/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court dismissed a writ petition seeking release of seized gold ornaments. The court held that since the petitioners had not moved an application under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, it was inappropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction at that juncture.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of reserving the petitioner's right to approach the customs authority under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Geethala Reddy Prasad Reddy Vs Union of India — Customs and Excise | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA '_-ATHYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THRti

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32317 oF2 23

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Geetha.la Reddy prasad Reddy, S/o_Venkata Rami Reddy Geethala. Aoed about 42 years. occ. tr consuitint, R/tidiN;l;;'i;;ili;iil;?ti"r"; Street No.8, Habsiguda, nvoeraoio-''sooboT^{''" '-'} "

¶9

2 Aleti Sw_athi, D/o Mohan Rao Aleti, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Nursino officer, Rro 2-24t1. p 6s 9oo. Bawirch"i-ioG]:-s;;Agii iibXy,"r.,lllp:,riV-" ' 'vrvi' vsPr( Ghatkersar, Hyderabad - SOtSbt

¶10

3 Nelluri Vasu, S/o Venkata R1o Nelluri, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Business. y^9 522007fl a] No. 1 0 1, chisurupari er ite, s/z VikZi-Gi"ai, 6 ;,idi X";il Frrt"".i":

¶11

4 Nelluri Hari Prasad Svdeswararao, S/o Narayana Nelluri, Aged about 47, Occ. Business, Rl/o^pedaoatem Achampet;'M;;;;i'b;;irr, Andhra pradesh _ 522410

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1' Union of rndia. Reoresented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New belhi.

¶15

2' Air customs suoerintendent (A|UC), office of the Deputy commissioner of 3o%ll3g', Rajiv' Gandhi rntiir"itiofiri'Ailpo.t,'"5namsn6olo, Hfi;ffiljl

¶16

3' Deputy commissioner of_ -customs, Rajiv Gandhi rntemationar Airport, Shamshabad, Hyderabad- 5OdO9^{-'I rg',r'vsrrv}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitu{ion of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the Respondents in flot provisionary rereasing the gold ornaments of the petitioners cumurativery weighing approximatery 15g.g

¶19

gms (24KT Gold Jeweilery) and 361.05 (22KT Gotd Jeweltery) as iflegat, highhanded, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia, and violative of the provisions of customs Act, 1962, and consequen y direct them to release the gold ornaments of the petitioners.

¶20

lA NO:^'l OF 2023

¶21

.Petition^{under Section151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the request of the petitioners in terms of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI KAILASH NATH p S S

¶23

counsel for the Respondents: sRlrGADt

¶24

i#rEEX.[rJ,iiBi^

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

t I

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE^N.TI'KARAMJI

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.32317^OF 2023

¶29

ORI)ER:@er Hon'ble Sri Justice^{P.SAM KOSHY)}

¶30

' The present Writ Petition has^{been frled seekingfor} appropriate direction to^{therespondents forprovisionally} releasing the gold ornaments^{of the petitionerseized by the} respondent-authorities^{on O3} '^{I I .2023 .}

¶31

The direction sought for^{is invoking of the Clause under} Section 11OA of the Customs^{Act, 1962 (for short "the Act,} 1962"1.

¶32

From the perusa-l of^{the records and pleadings,what is} reflected is that, there^{does not seem to a formal application} moved by the^{petitioner beforethe authorityconcerned under} Section 11OA^{of the Act, 1962. ln the absence of any application} being hled by the^{petitioner,it wouldnot be appropriate,at this} juncture, for this Bench to invoke the^{extraordinaryWrit} jurisdiction for a direction to the respondents^{to considerrelease} of the goods which^{have been otherwiseseized.}

¶33

Accordingly,^{we are of the considered opinionthat the Writ} Petition, at this^{juncture,deserves to be disposed of reserving}

¶34

¶35

PSI(,J&.Mr&J W.P.No.32377 of 2023

¶36

the right of the petitioner to approach the authority concerned by moving appropriate application under Section I 1OA of the Act, 1962. Upon such application being made, the authority concerned is expected to take a decision in accordance with law at the earliest. The writ Petition thus stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed

¶38

SO/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -/ \t//

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

Ministry of Finance, Deparrment of Revenue, Union of tndia,

¶42

To,, I:iB?fl?]rry, 2. The Air customs suoerintendent (Aru-c), office of the Deputy commrssioner of 500409Customs. Ra iiv ba nd hi r nt"i,i"ii""i i' irii,it I'sri jrnrri'"o-;d; iilj#ffi :

¶43

3' The Deputy commissioner _of customs, Rajiv Gandhi rnternationar Airport, Shamshabad, Hyderabad- 5OO40S

¶44

9ne^{CC to SRt KATLASHNATH p} S S, Advocare. tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRr GAD| PFByFEN (u-nrnn,^{-orr's*6lrcirbn} cEN. oF rNDrA. ^^{Highc_ourtfor the state of Tetangana it nvo"?io-ioliopucl} 6. Two CD Copies. BSK

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212023

ORDER

WP.No.32317^{ot 2023}

¶50

1 $E STAI e'
(
ooq) 2B OEC 20?3
)'oz
,-'

0ES cAT Ctio

¶51

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶52

Gtld
Ao-a-

¶53

',lV'

Geethala Reddy Prasad Reddy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geethala Reddy Prasad Reddy v. Union of India

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

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Naazia Khan

Sub K Impact Solutions Limited Vs Sub K Impact Solutions Limited

Telangana Girijan Cop-operative Corporation Limited Vs The State of Telangana

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs Mohamed Azam

K a Reddy, Hyderabad Vs B Rajaram Yadav, Gujarat and 1 Other

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs K.Anji Reddy