S. K. MOOKHERJEE,J. - (1.) The present appeal is directed against an order of a learned single Judge dated 15th February, 1985 in CO. No.l8249(W) of 1984 disposing of a writ petition on consent of the writ petitioner, who is respondent No. 1 in the present appeal and one of the respondents who is respondent No.6 before us. This is a typical example of how disposal of an application even on consent without due circumspection and attention, no notice being served on necessary parties, may lead to serious complications and result in irreparable damage being caused to such latter party.
(2.) The relevant facts leading to the impugned order may be succinctly stated as follows :- Vikash Trading Company, the appellant before us, carries on business as a merchant and commission agent at Erode; On or about 29.10.1984, about 270 bags of turmeric bulbs (Koraghatta) had been consigned by Vikash Trading Company via South Eastern Railway to the firm of respondent No. 1, known as Krishna Traders of No.20, Hara Chandra Mallik Street, Calcutta. The said consignment was valued, as discernible from the relevant documents, at Rs, 1,46,800/-; The said consignment reacted the Railway shed on 10.11.84 and had been unloaded at Shall mar on 17.11.84 ; Since the relevant documents did not, by that time, reach the consignee, upon intimation by them the consignor sent necessary indemnity bond executed by the Stale Bank of India, Salem, to enable the consignee to get the goods released and such bond had been received by the consignee on 23.11.84. The said bond on being placed before the railway authorities the said authority expressed requirement for local surety bond to enable them to release the goods covered by the consignment; Since the last date far taking delivery of the consignment; as allowed under the relevant statutory . provision, was 25.11.84, which was a Sunday, the consignee deposited all the relevant document on 26.1 1.84 and the Railway authorities found the same to be in order on 27. 11.84. It appears from the endorsement at the back of the indemnity bond produced that the documents were found to be in order'; The consignee went to take delivery on 28.11.84 when it was allegedly told to them that a confiscation proceeding had been started at the instance of the Additional Collector, Howrah, who is respondent No.6 in the present appeal, since the statutory time limit for obtaining release of the goods had expired on 25.11.84 and the goods became liable to seizure and confiscation for the purpose realisation of the freight; On 1.12.1984, the consignee filed an application before the Additional Collector, respondent No. 6, praying for condonation of the delay, dropping of the confiscation proceedings and release of the seized consignment stating therein, the reasons for their failure to take delivery in time. On the said application the said respondent no. 6 made an endorsement directing the I.O. to report by 3.12.1984. The said direction was brought to the notice of the concerned I.O., who had been impleaded in the present appeal as respondent No. 7, at about 3 P.M. on the very same day that is 1.12. 1984. It further appears that the said consignment had been formally seized on 1.12. 1984, for realisation of the charges at 5 p.m. It is significant to note at this stage that on a report dated 28.11.84 submitted by respondent no. 7 to respondent No. 6 the latter directed the seizure of the said goods immediately by his order of even date: The said direction, however, was conveniently overlooked and not mentioned or indicated when the order on the application of the respondent No. 1 the consignee directing the I.O. to submit a report by 3.12.84 had been made on 1.12.1984;
(3.) The facts which followed subsequent to the seizure are stranger still. On 1.12.1984 the seized goods forming the subject matter of the disputed consignment had been shifted from the Shalimar Goods Shed to the custody of one N. R. Das at 4, Gobinda Dhar Lane.;