Calcutta High Court
WP.CT/339/2024 of THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM (ADMINISTRATION AND AIRPORT) Vs AMIT GHOSH AND ORS on 27 July 2026
rpan/01-03 WPCT 338 of 2024 The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport) – Versus – Shri Sanjay Kumar Gond & Others with WPCT 339 of 2024 The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport) – Versus – Amit Ghosh & Others
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
27.07.2026 rpan/01-03
WPCT 338 of 2024 The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport)
– Versus – Shri Sanjay Kumar Gond & Others with WPCT 339 of 2024 The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport)
– Versus – Amit Ghosh & Others with WPCT 343 of 2024 The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport)
– Versus – Shri Ajay Kumar Gond & Others Mr. Kaushik Dey, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree … for the Petitioner [in all the matters]. Mr. Ujjal Ray (through V. C.), Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Mr. Abdur Rahim … for the Original Applicants/ Respondent no.1 [in all the matters].
Records reveal that three persons, namely, Shri Sanjay Kumar Gond, Shri Ajay Kumar Gond and Amit Ghosh preferred three original applications, being OA /350/2024/ 2021, OA/ 350 /2025 /2021 and OA /350 /832 /2023 respectively. The first two original applications were disposed of by a common order dated 14th August, 2024 and the third original application was also disposed of by a similar order dated 14th August 2024.
Aggrieved thereby, the above three writ petitions have been preferred by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport). We have heard Mr. Dey learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the original applicants in the respective original applications in the present writ petitions. We have been informed that during pendency of the present writ petitions, the applicants have been reinstated and the enquiry, as directed, was commenced by the authorities in terms of the orders impugned in the above writ petitions. In view thereof and as the orders impugned in the above writ petitions have been acted upon by the writ petitioners, the writ petitions have become infructuous. Accordingly, the above writ petitions, being WPCT 338 of 2024, WPCT 339 of 2024 and WPCT 343 of 2024, are dismissed as infructuous. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 2