JUDGMENT :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. The short question that needs to be addressed is the non-compliance of the directions of this Court and waiver of the demurrage and detention charges by the respondent no. 5 in the following factual background:

1.1. A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Special Civil Application No. 14849 of 2021 by the present petitioner seeking to release the consignment comprising Chinese Knotted Woolen Carpets which were detained by the respondent no. 2 on 06.01.2021. This, according to the petitioner, was causing huge financial loss and therefore, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed, that in conspectus of the facts, circumstances and grounds mentioned herein supra, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing learned Respondents to release the consignment imported under B/E No. 4956991 dated 06.08.2021.

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order directing learned Respondents to either pay themselves or to waive the payment of demurrage detention and any other charges.

(c) Issue Rule Nisi in terms of prayers at (a) and (b) above and confirm the same after hearing the parties.

(d) Pass ad-interim ex-parte order in terms of prayer at (a) and above.

(e) Award cost of this Petition.

(f) Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the Petitioner in the interest of justice.”

1.2. This Court (Coram: Ms. Sonia Gokani and Ms. Nisha M. Thakore, JJ.) allowed the petition directing the consignment of the carpet of the petitioner to be released without loss of time within one week of receipt of copy of the order:

“31. We notice that the petitioner, on one hand, has approached this Court by preferring the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and he has chosen not to cooperate to complete the pending inquiry in relation to M/s. Kaka Carpets and on the other hand, he has furnished the bond before this Court and has ensured to cooperate with that inquiry. Both being separate issues and his medical condition, since did not permit him to approach in a fortnight time, with his specific assurance to the respondent, objection raised is not worth sustaining. The Court is of the opinion that there is a sufficient and independent devise and mechanism under the law for him to appear and assist the inquiry/investigation. However, the applicant’s non-appearance from inquiry cannot be a valid ground for the authority to hold back his goods without following any legal procedure as contemplated under the law of seizure and, hence, the release should be made immediately within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order on following due procedure of law.

32. It is to be noted that there is no dearth of power with the respondent for it to seize the goods and provisional release could have been also permitted in such eventuality. Here neither the seizure is made nor any other proceedings pursuant to the lackadaisical approach to the summons is addressed. And, therefore, this Court needs to show indulgence without even entering into the binding decision of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) of the Supreme Court.

33. Petition is allowed. Consignment of carpets of the petitioner shall be released without loss of time within a week of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner shall abide by his undertaking without fail. The petitioner is also permitted to request for demurrage to the respondent, which shall consider the said request in wake of the findings and observations made herein on following due process of law.”

2. Since the consignment imported dated 06.08.2021 had not been released despite the specific direction of this Court to release the goods within a week, the petitioner has preferred the present pet