WP/8170/2007 of Govind Kumar Lohia Vs Commissioner of Customs AND Central Excise, Service Tax, on 31 December 2008

: O R D E R :

Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. G. Jhansi Counsel for the respondents : Shri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General August 6, 2007

Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made the following substantive prayer:

“it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1[st]respondent in not removing the attached goods of M/s. JagadishCancer & Research Center from the premises bearing No.3-6-20,Tirumala Apartments, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and refusal to payrents/damages for utilizing the premises as being illegal, arbitrary andin violation of Customs Act, 1962 and consequently direct the 1[st]respondent herein to remove the attached equipment from thepremises forthwith and pass such other appropriate order or ordersas are deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice.”

There is no dispute between the parties that M/s.SiddharthaHealth Care Limited had availed credit facility from the AndhraPradesh Industrial Development Corporation (respondent No.2) andoffered the property bearing Shop Nos.12 to 15 and Garage Nos.15and 16 situated in House No.3-6-20, Tirumala Apartments, SkylineTheatre Road, Himayatnagar as security. It is also not in dispute thatdue to failure of M/s.Siddhratha Health Care Limited to repay the loan,respondent No.2 auctioned the mortgaged properties and the highestoffer of Rs.30,10,000/- given by the petitioner was accepted. Thepetitioner’s grievance is that he has not been able to take possessionof the mortgaged property because imported radio-activeequipment/material belonging to M/s.Jagadish Cancer and ResearchCenter Private Limited, Hyderabad, which was occupying themortgaged property as a lessee, has not been removed and despiterepeated representations, respondent No.1 has not taken care to remove the equipment by invoking the provisions of Section 142 ofCustoms Act, 1962.

On 4-6-2007, the Court had accepted the request of Shri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for grant of twomonths time to the respondents to remove the radio-active materiallying in the premises purchased by the petitioner.

At the hearing, Shri A. Rajasekhar Reddy gave out that thedepartment has made efforts on two occasions to ensure that the radio-active material is removed, but has not succeeded. According to him,the Atomic Energy Commission, to whom the department hasapproached, requires six months time to remove the radio-activeequipment/material.

Though unusual, keeping in view that the safety of the generalpublic cannot be compromised, we deem it proper to accept therequest of the learned Assistant Solicitor General and dispose of thewrit petition with the direction that the radio-active equipment/materiallying in the premises purchased by the petitioner must be removedwithin six months counted from today so as to enable him to occupythe mortgaged property. Ordered accordingly.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 10482 of2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of asinfructuous.

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ

August 6, 2007

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

ks