In a recent case, the Madras High Court summoned the Customs Officer since the authority failed to respond to the Seizing of a Motorized Boat.
AL Ameen, the petitioner submitted that on 25.05.2023, the petitioner’s motorized boat has been seized by the respondents and the petitioner has given a representation before the higher officials of the third respondent as there was no response.
The petitioner filed a writ petition for the direction to release the boat of the petitioner considering his representation dated 12.06.2023. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22.06.2023 directing the petitioner to appear before the respondents/customs officials for enquiry and submit his explanation, on which, the respondents were directed to release the boat if the petitioner makes a cogent and truthful explanation.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent’s Police and submit his explanation. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents not to harass him. During the course of the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel failed to explain as to on what date and in which place, the petitioner was harassed by the respondents.
The Special Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondents and submitted that the summons was issued to the petitioner thrice for enquiry as directed by the Court. But despite receiving the summons, the petitioner never chose to appear before the respondent.
A single bench comprising Dr Justice D Nagarjun disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to appear before the third respondent on 28.07.2023 and in case the petitioner is having grievance in the manner of conducting an enquiry and in the outcome of the enquiry, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
