Ruknuddin Abbas. S/o Ruknuddin Hasan, Aged about v. Union of lndia

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner submitted on 17-11-2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEpAK Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI N. BHUJANGA t AO, SC FOR CENTRAL ( OVT. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI DOMINIC FERNANI) :2, SC FOR CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA A'T YDERABAI) I I THE HONOURABLE Szu JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE, HONOTJRABLE SRI .IUSTICE SUDI)ALA CIIAI,APATHI RAO WRI'I' PETIl'lON No.36349 of 2025 Date: 02.12.2025 BeIrveen: Ruknuddin Abbas Union of lndia, Ministry ol Finance. New Delhi-110001, reprcscntcd bl its Secretary and others. And petrtroner Respondents ORDER, (per Hon'bla Sri .Iustit:a I'.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.Naga Deepak, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Mr.B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing leamed Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr.Dominic Femandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel lor the Customs Deparlment, leamed counsel for the respondents, respectively and perused the record. The instant writ petition has been filed claiming tbr the following

2. relief "Therefore in view of the above it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Couft may be pleascd to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declariug the inactior.r of the respondent-Customs authorities in not considering the petitioner's reprcsentaflbt6 2 i subrnitted on I7.11.2015 and in not passirtg orders L der Section I2-1 ol the Custonrs Act, 1962 as being illcgal lnd arbitraryr and consequcntll direct the respondents to lbn I " th consider the petitioner's l'epresentation sttbnrittei on l4.l I .201a and pass appropriate ordcrs assessillg du4'. i rr1 , and releasc thc petitionel's goods in aocordattce with llLr :irld pass such other ordcr or orders as tlris Ilon'blc (]ot,ri r1a] deem fit and proper in the interests oljustice.'

3. l'hc whole issue arosc out of the seizure which r\ rs seized b\ tlle second respondent upon the petitioner travelling 'drn Dubai to I{yderabad by' Indigo I'light 6E1466 on ll.Il.20li The sccond rcspondent authorities seizcd the baggagc ol the Pot t oncr and upon verification of oontents of the samc. it uas fbuncl Iat the baggage containcd the lbllowing a(icles in it "lphoneiT Pro Max (l lB)-09 Nos. lphone 17 Pro Max (256GE})- I 2 Nos. lphonelT Pro Max (256GB)-06 Nos. Perfume Blue OUD (lbraq) 100 MI--35 No: Perfume Boisee 150 ML-O1 Nos. Perttme Rayhaan Obsidian-06 Nos. Samsung galaxy A- 14 (6GB)-0 t Nos Whoop WS50 Smart Watch-27 Nos. l-adies Purse-02 Nos (Atdo & Cloche) Dell CPU Optiplex 3060-02 Nos. Dell CPU Optiplex 3070-01 Nos."

4. [t has been contended by learned counsel for li ] pctitioner that the petilioner at this juncture is ready to pay whatever t I : custou dutv is assessed with and penalty and other charges that shall t i irnposed hy thc customs authorities which could entail the pelitioner i r' l-he release of the goods I I I I I I I I i J

5. Leamed Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, contends that. since the goods rvere seized only on

13.1 1.2025. the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 (fbr shor-t ,.the Act") have to be drarvn strictll, in accordance with the provisions spelt out undcr the Act. In the process, according to the Standing Counsel, summons have already been issued, which is also on

14.11.2025 directing the petitioner to appear before the authorities on

14.11.2025. 'fhe petitioner subrnits that ire has also entered appeal.ance belore the authorities in tenls of sumrnons and has also approached the authorities by way of representation asking tlicln to cxpedite thc proceedings by assessing whatever is thc oustoms dut1,. penalty and other charges, which the petitioner *ould bo rcquired to pay lor the release of. the said goods. Flowever. the grievance of the petitioner is that there has been no furthor progress since then. I-earned Standing Counsel subrnits that it is too early at this juncture to say that there is no progress in the proceedings. The provisions of larv have to be drawn in a procedural manner as stipulatcd undcr the Ast and which takes its own time. Learned Standing Counsel lurther also highlighted thc aspect that if at all if for any reason notice undcr Sqction t24 has not been issued within a period of six months, the petitioner would be automatically get the benefit and shall be entitted lor release of the said goods. 4 Nonetheless, he himsetf submits that all ellorls will b: made lor the expeditious conclttsion of the proceedings. (t. Considering the subtnissions made on the p 1 t oi oouusel appearing on eithcr side, we do not intend to kcep tlr' writ pctition pending any lurther.

7. I'he Writ Petition at this juncture stands disposed r i dirccting the third respondent to take appropriatc steps in accor''l ncc ',vith thc provisions of'lau as expeditiously as possible No costs' Conscquentll'. miscellaneous pctitions pending. il I n1, shalL sLand olosed. sD/' . sRtNrvAg4.BEPPI AS( ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I I \\sEcTIoN oFFlcER To, 1 2 3 4 C 6 7 \ Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block' Ney'' : ttni - 1 1 0001' Tf,8..,::i,t""?"tJJLil;i'3t3fl,;rr rndustriarsecurity Forc: (crSF), RGrA Unit, Shimshabad, HYderabad - 500409' 6+il;ith;b;rjutvnssistaii'colimissioner of c-u^1t91 s' Rajiv Gandhi i"t"inrtrnJr aitbo'i, sr,a*shabad' Hyderabad - 5004- ) ij;=.;'iii; siii [4. r.rAcA oeEPAK, Advocate-t^oIggl 6l; 6 d iX 5 iii b'o H,r r r.r r i rE nr'rAr't o ez, sc- FoR-c€ 5;; E6 i; siii N. BHUJANaA irAb-,bn.-sbltctrorl ]ENERAL oF INDIA toPUCl Two CD CoPies : Io P u cl BN LS HIGH COURT DATED:0211212025 = {t sIl '! ,| s (J (J ?3,t N202[ z C) '-a.. . :>' ORDER WP.No.36349 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q, ."cnL \c- .-,,...--grrlr