Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner states that the petitioner under an actual user's import licence imported diverse consignments of G. P. Sheets which were duly landed from the relative vessels at the Port of Calcutta and thereafter taken charge of and stored in sheds and warehouses belonging to the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta who are the respondents to this application. Upon landing of the said goods the petitioner submitted through its clearing agents to the Customs Authorities, Calcutta, the relative bills of entry and complied with the Import Trade Control formalities for the clearance of the goods. But the clearance thereof was withheld. In consequence the goods remained for a considerable period of time in the custody of the respondent. Pending the Customs clearance of the goods the same were caused to be removed by the petitioner into the bonded warehouse and the last of such removal took place on the 13th June, 1968. At the time of removal the petitioner duly paid to the respondents wharf rents on divers dates in May and June, 1968 aggregating to a sum of Rs. 1,73,933.10 P. The petitioner is the owner of the said goods. The Customs authorities initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the purpose of confiscation of the said goods. The said proceedings ultimately terminated in favour of the petitioner and the Central Board of Excise and Customs by an order dated 8th December, 1969 permitted release and clearance of the goods. The petitioner contends that by virtue of the Notification which was prevalent at that time and which will be noticed later on, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the wharf rent paid to the respondents for the detention of the goods in the warehouse of the respondent under circumstances mentioned hereinbefore. On the 14th June, 1968 the petitioner made two applications for registering an interim claim for refund of rent charges by reason of the detention of the goods and inasmuch as the said goods were still being detained by the Customs authorities, according to the petitioner all the relevant documents could not be filed with the respondent along with the said two applications both dated 14th August, 1968. The petitioner expressed the hope that the petitioner would be able to have the said goods released and also to obtain the requisite certificate from the Customs authorities. The petitioner undertook to submit such documents to the respondent as soon as the same were available and the said goods were allowed to be cleared by the Customs authorities. Upon receipt of the said two applications by a letter dated 4/6th September, 1968 the respondents stated as follows:-- "Re:-- Refund of rent charges on the ground of detention of goods by Customs landed ex S. S. "Mitaka Maru" and S. S. "Eastern Maid".
(2.) Claims for refund of Port Commissioner's charges are required to be preferred within the stipulated time limit of three months from the date of last delivery along with the relevant documents and P. C. vouchers in original. Where Customs detention certificate is not available at the time of lodging claims; a formal claim supported by the original P. C. receipts and a copy of the letter written to the Customs authority for issue of detention certificate should be submitted within the time limit.
(3.) "As the above formalities have not been complied with your above letter cannot be treated as a valid claim which please note". In reply to the aforesaid letter the petitioner by a letter dated 18th October, 1968 intimated to the respondent that inasmuch as the matter of Customs clearance of the said goods was pending before the Central Board of Excise and Customs at New Delhi, the original rent receipts granted by the respondent could not be produced immediately and the said receipts would be filed with the respondent as soon as the said matter was finally disposed of by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and appropriate wharf rent exemption certificates were issued in favour of the petitioner. On or about 8th December, 1969, the Central Board of Excise and Customs at New Delhi passed an order for remittance of the fine in full imposed in lieu of confiscation. On or about 1st September, 1970 the petitioner received two wharf rent exemption certificates from the Customs authorities both dated 25th August, 1970. On or about 24th November, 1970, the Collector of Customs issued in favour of the petitioner two further wharf rent exemption certificates both dated 24th November, 1970. On or about 26th November, 1970, the petitioner filed the said four certificates together with the relative wharf rent receipts with the respondent and prayed that wharf rent paid as aforesaid should be refunded. In answer to the said claim mentioned hereinbefore, the respondent by a letter dated 25th/27th January, 1971 informed the petitioner that inasmuch as the claim had been lodged after the expiry of the time limit, it was regretted, that the same stood barred by limit of time. In consequence, they returned the vouchers and other documents submitted by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said communication and letter, the petitioner has moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the said order contained in the letter of 4th/6th September, 1968 and 25th/ 27th January, 1971 for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to transmit and to certify to this Court the entire records and proceedings relating to the said order dated 4th/6th September, 1968 and 25th/27th January, 1971 passed by and or on behalf of the respondent rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund of the wharf rent and for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to forthwith refund the said sum of Rs. 79,896/-being the amount of wharft rent paid in excess and a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to recall the said order of the respondents and for other consequential reliefs.;