D.N.Jha, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been directed with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of seizure of six packages mentioned in annexure No. 1 and it has been prayed that they be released without furnishing any security to the petitioner-company.
(2.) The petitioner is a private limited company and has its head office at Delhi and the branch office is at Lucknow. The branch office is also duly registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. Life Insurance Corporation of India placed an order for supply of three units of air-conditioners along with accessories with the petitioner-company through its branch office at Lucknow. The Life Insurance Corporation had applied for supply of form 32 so that when the goods were received at Lucknow, there may be no complication. The letter addressed to the Sales Tax Officer is contained in annexure No. 7. The department, for reasons best known to it, did not supply this form as prayed by the Life Insurance Corporation. In the meantime, the goods arrived from Delhi and the Life Insurance Corporation had directed the branch office of the petitioner to take delivery. In pursuance of the said request the delivery was taken and while the goods were being transported, they were seized by opposite party No. 2. It transpires that vide annexure No. 6, the Divisional Manager, L. I. C, wrote to the Assistant Commissioner (E), U.P., Sales Tax, Lucknow, vide his letter dated 5th February, 1986, for release of the goods as they were to be installed in their office at Burlington Hotel which is having a computer centre so as to enable them to start their work at the earliest opportunity. In spite of it no heed was paid by the respondents. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court through this writ petition. On 17th February, 1986, notice of the petition was handed over to the learned counsel for the State to obtain instructions. The court ordered the petition to be posted for orders on 21st February, 1986.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through various averments made in the petition and the annexure accompanying the petition. We are satisfied that the respondents have acted in a most reckless and careless manner which does not behove of their action. This department has been created to realise revenue and not to cause harassment to the people in general. The present case is a living instance of harassment and, therefore, no lenient view can be taken in the matter. The goods were after all to be supplied to the Life Insurance Corporation which is the Government-owned corporation. It was, therefore, expected that the department would act with prudence, but in the instant case they violated all norms of decency and we have no hesitation in recording a finding that such harassments shall not be tolerated in a democratic country like India. With these observations we are of the view that the seizure of goods made by the respondents cannot be justified under law.;