Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) THE Court: The immediate occasion for passing the order impugned in the writ petition was a direction by this court in a writ petition filed in the year 2003. A learned single judge of this court by an order dated August 16, 2004 had inter alia directed the respondent no. 5 to the said writ petition to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the communication of the order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The said respondent was also directed to pass a reasoned order.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition, as it appears from the said order, was that in spite of submission of the relevant documents including the shipping bills and other necessary certificates no step had been taken by the respondents authorities for release of the drawback amount to the petitioner. In compliance with the said order the respondent no. 4 herein by a communication dated September 17, 2004 had inter alia informed the petitioner's firm that in spite of several summons the firm was not co -operating wit the authorities. He expressed his doubt about the existence of the firm which, according to him, warranted an investigation of agreement paper recording change of proprietorship from M/s. Surajbhan to the petitioner. He, therefore, requested the firm to co -operate with the department for the completion of the investigation and once no objection recording release of drawback was received from the Special Investigation Branch only the Drawback Department would be in a position to release the drawback and thus the representation made by the petitioner was disposed of.
(3.) THIS had left the petitioner aggrieved and his challenge to the same is by way of the present writ petition.;