MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE

1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J. --The petitioner who is a shopkeeper in Motandas Market, has challenged in this petition the action of respondent No. 2 which was allegedly taken by them on 22nd October, 1979. It is alleged that the officials belonging to the Organization of the defendant No. 2 raided Motandas Market at about 10 a.m. on 22nd October, 1979 and seized various goods from different shops on the allegation that they were smuggled goods. It is claimed that from shops No.182-183 in the said market which are occupied by the petitioner merchandise and cash worth Rs.43,200 were also removed by respondent No.2. It is contended that the action taken by respondent No.2 was contrary to provision of section 163 of the Customs Act. This petition was presented in this Court on 26-11-1979 which was admitted to regular hearing and notices were served on the respondents. However, until February, 1989 no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on 6-2-1989, although the raid by the officials of respondent No.2 of Motandas Market, and recovery of goods from some shops was admitted but in respect of shops of the petitioner it is alleged that there is no record to show that these shops were raided or goods were removed. It is accordingly, contended that it appears that no action was taken in respect of the shops occupied by petitioner. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter-affidavit in which he has reiterated that the goods mentioned in the petition and cash were removed by the officials of the respondent No. 2. 'In view of above dispute regarding factual aspect of the case it is not possible to decide the controversy raised in the petition in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is regrettable that the respondents were served with the notice of this petition as late in January, 1980 but they filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations after about 9 years on the plea of absence of record which cannot be ascertained conveniently now. In these circumstances we dismiss the petition but leave it open to the petitioner to take such criminal or civil proceedings as may be available to the petitioner in this behalf under the law. There will be no order as to costs.

2. MYH/M-847/K

3. Petition dismissed.