- (1.) On 18.12.2012, after considering the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following order: "Counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited 25% of the amount of penalty imposed upon him, the respondent has failed to release his goods in compliance of the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No.23591 of 2012. Let a notice be issued to the respondent for 20.12.2012 to show cause as to why proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against him for non-compliance of the aforesaid order, as alleged. At the asking of the Court, Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Necessary requisites be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of the day. Reply, if any, be filed before the date fixed. COCP No.3603 of 2012 2 Let the respondent be present in Court on the date fixed."
(2.) Upon notice, reply by way of an affidavit of Manjit Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer, Mobile Wing, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar has been filed in Court, which is taken on record. Para Nos.3 and 4 of the aforesaid affidavit read thus: "3. That in compliance of the above said order, the deponent has released the goods vide release order dated 20.12.2012, a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure R/1. 4. That there is a delay of few days has been caused because the order was mis-understood by the deponent. The deponent holds this Hon'ble Court in the highest esteem and cannot even to think of violate/disobey or flout any order or direction of this Hon'ble Court or any other Court of Law. The deponent tenders an unconditional and unqualified apology for the delay and is ready to take corrective steps as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court."
(3.) In view of the fact that goods of the petitioner have been released, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with this petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been harassed unnecessarily at the hands of the respondent.;