Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition for quashing or setting aside an order of seizure and also for quashing or setting aside the authorisation under Section 58(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and appropriate writ and directions in respect thereto.
(2.) The facts of this case are identical save and except that it relates to the subsequent stage of actual seizure of goods from the possession and custody of the petitioners from their premises at No. 1, Balaram Dey St. Calcutta from their respective rooms. The previous writ petition which I have just now disposed of by a judgment and order relates to the authorisation for search and seizure of the premises of the petitioners. The present writ petition relates to the seizure of the goods also under the Gold Control Act, 1968. This application in addition to challenging the search and seizure the petitioners have challenged the authorisation issued under Section 58 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, which could not be challenged in the previous writ petition as the petitioners were not aware of the same. As all the facts and law are practically covered by the previous judgment and order I am not dealing with the same once again in this matter. The matter was argued by Mr. A.K.Dhandhania, on behalf of the petitioners, and it was agreed by both the parties that the facts are identical as it relates to the same authorisation. Search and seizure in addition that there was also authorisation under the Gold Control Act, 1968 which is sought to be agitated in this application. The present writ petition was filed on the 9th November, 1976 and Rule was issued. Subsequently, it appears that by an order dated the 19th May, 1977 the petitioners amended the petition by adding a further ground being ground No. 13 in paragraph 64 to the petition that the said authorisation for search and seizure violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 19(1) and 31(1) of the Constitution of India, as it deprived the petitioners of their rights to property illegally and authority of law. Mr. Dhandhania tried to impress upon the Court by drawing my attention to various allegations made by the petitioners relating to the actual search and seizure at the premises of the petitioners and submitted that the Respondents have acted illegally and high handed manner and seized the articles without any authority of law. It appears to me that the petitioners after making the first writ petition which I have just now disposed of and obtained a Rule Nisi by this Court tried very best through its Advocate and Solicitor to prevent the search and seizure although in fact no injunction was issued restraining the Respondents from searching or seizing the articles under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act.
(3.) I have carefully considered the letter of D.N. Bhattacharyay, the then Solicitor, acting on behalf the petitioners dated 10th September, and 11th of September, 1976 and also the letter dated the 8th September, 1976, by the petitioners to the respondent No. 2 S.P. Choudhury. It appears that the petitioners were under the impression that by moving a writ petition challenging the authorisation for search and seizure by the previous applications they could prevent the search and seizure of the article according to law without obtaining any interim injunction restraining the respondents from acting under the law and discharged their duties. But it appears that the said attempt of the petitioners utterly failed and goods were seized by the respondents according to law giving the petitioner and their representatives every opportunity as is required at this stage.;