P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an application by Palriwala Brothers Ltd., for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Collector of Customs, the Additional Collector of Customs, and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, to recall, revoke & cancel the Notice to Show Cause No. 537-2 55/53P (part) "Alca" dated 8th February, 1956 and all other notices and directions or orders issued or passed in connection therewith and also calling upon them to forbear from proceeding under Section 167 (3) and (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 3 (2) of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 or under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Sections 12 (1) and 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and from in any way giving effect to or enforcing the order of 28th June, 1956 in connection therewith.
(2.) The petition is full of repetitions and is unnecessarily prolix. It runs into 56 paragraphs where some paragraphs are almost verbatim repetitions of previous paragraphs.
(3.) Although the petition is supposed to be on behalf of a Limited Company, yet no Director of the Company has affirmed the petition or made any affidavit in these proceedings. The person who signs and affirms this petition is one Manindra Bhusan Banerjee who describes himself in the first portion of the petition as the Export Superintendent of the Company. In the affidavit-in-opposition of Suberna Kumar Srivastava affirmed on 1st March, 1957 it was distinctly alleged that the petition is not properly verified and that the person verifying it was neither a Director nor the Secretary of the Company. It was also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that Manindra Bhusan Banerjee in various correspondence and proceedings denied knowledge of even established facts. In fact, by a letter dated 30th April, 1956, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Srivastava wrote to the Director in Charge of the Company expressly and pointedly: "Kindly intimate if the signatory of the said: letter (letter dated 28-4-56) is duly authorised to sign on behalf of the firm and also whether all the replies to the letters of the Customs House signed by him are deemed to have been issued with the knowledge of the Directors of the firm. The source of the information on which he based his replies may also be kindly intimated within a week hereof." No reply was given by the Company to that letter. Even in answer to that categorical statement in the affidavit-in-opposition, the affidavit-in-reply was not affirmed by any Director of the Company, but by the same person Manindra Bhusan Banerjee repeating the allegation that he was the Export Superintendent of the Company and as such a principal officer of that Company. Even then in dealing with that allegation, the affidavit-in-reply does not produce or annex his authority to sign on behalf of the Company. He says that his authority to sign on behalf of the Company was registered with the Customs Authority which, if the affidavit of Srivastava is to be accepted, is not true. During the hearing of this application, I called upon him to produce his authority either from the Directors in charge or from the Resolution of the Board of Directors or from any other source on behalf of the Company. He failed to produce it. In the warrant that he filed with this petition, he said that he had authority from the Company to sign the warrant of Attorney. But he failed to produce any authority in Court.;