- (1.)THE petitioner has come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a complaint against the respondents, specially against respondent no. 2 that despite his repeated requests and letters the respondents are not ready and willing to withdraw the articles from the custody of the petitioner, which was given to the petitioner under his Supurddari. The facts in nutshell are that on 27.10.1999 under the seizure list, annexed to the petition at page 11 (Annexure -1), certain excisable items were seized and custody of the same was handed over to the present petitioner, L.B. Sinha, proprietor of L.B. Sinha Enterprises. On 28.10.1999 the petitioner made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise that he had received certain goods for safe custody. The petitioner 'scase is that despite his various requests to the departmental officers for removal of the goods from his custody and discharge him of his liability for the reasons best known to the said officers they did not pass any orders on his application and orally directed him to keep the goods in his custody until final disposal of the criminal case instituted by M/s Kiran Wine Shop against the departmental officers and the present petitioner. From the documents annexed with the petition it would clearly appear that the petitioner repeatedly asked the department to remove the goods but the departmental officers did not pass any orders rather did not find it necessary to give any order or direction in writing.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the State Government submits that though there are certain lapses on the part of the officers but no malafides can be assumed against them and as the petitioner so also the departmental officers are facing the criminal case and the articles kept in the custody of the petitioner are articles relating to the alleged offence, they were not entitled to remove the goods without the permission of the Court. In the alternative it is submitted that the petitioner himself being an accused could have made an application before the criminal court for taking the custody of those articles from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that under the directions of the departmental officers, the petitioner accepted the custody but once he found that he is unable to maintain the custody or keep the articles in safe custody, department cannot force him to continue with the custody. He submits that the manner in which the State Officers have coerced him would clearly show that the State officers do not have any respect for the law and being mad with their authority are trying to exploit the petitioner.

(3.)I had heard the parties. Undisputedly, these articles were seized on 27.9.1999, at this stage l presume that the petitioner gave his consent to have the said articles in his safe custody. The consent of a person is his voluntary act and it cannot he thrusted upon him. So long as the petitioner was a consenting party, obviously he opted the safe custody but once he made an application to the department withdrawing his consent, the departmental officers were obliged and duty bound under the law to relieve and discharge the petitioner of his liability. At this stage learned counsel for the State submits that the officers of the State at best could take some steps and they could not directly relieve him from his liability. In the opinion of this Court the argument is contrary to the basic understanding of law. There was an agreement between the State Officers and the petitioners, the petitioner offered his service to the department that he will hold the safe custody of those articles for the department. It is not in dispute before me that for the said services offered by the petitioner no remuneration either fixed or ex -gratia was paid to him. In a case of Supurdnama it is not necessary to dwell upon the details of law, but suffice it to say that once Supurddar makes an application to a person, who has given custody of the articles, that he does not wish to have the custody any more then the person, who have handed over the custody would be obliged and duty bound to withdraw the custody and relieve or discharge the Supurddar of his liability. In the present case, it would clearly appear that the departmental officers were not ready or willing to discharge the liability, rather were coercing and pressurising the petitioner to continue as Supurddar.