DR.ASHA SHIVASANKARA PILLAI v. UNION OF INDIA

R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No. 35124 of 2011 (M) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 24.01.2003. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ON 15.04.2010. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 35124 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January, 2012 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner, who is a Doctor by profession, is before this Court alleging harassment at the hands of the respondents 3 and 4.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, she is a qualified Doctor and is working in a Clinic at the place in question. She was earlier working abroad and on transfer of residence in tune with the Scheme formulated by the Government, she imported a car bearing No.KL-03-D-9010, which was subsequently registered in the State of Kerala as per the relevant rules. She was later served with a notice under the relevant provisions of Customs Act, alleging violation of the relevant provisions of law with regard to the import of the car. Accordingly, customs duty was imposed and so also the fine as well, and an order of confiscation was passed under Section 111(d) and 111(m). However, opportunity was given to the petitioner to avoid the confiscation, W.P.(C) No. 35124 of 2011 -:2:- on payment of a fine of Rs.7 lakhs, besides the penalty of Rs.1 lakh, under Section 111(2) (a) of the Customs Act.

3. Being aggrieved of the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the statutory authority. After considering the merits involved, the Tribunal passed an order, borne by Ext.P1 in the year 2003, whereby the impugned order was set aside. The case of the petitioner is that the said order has become final, by virtue of the fact that the respondents have not chosen to challenge it before the concerned authorities.

4. While so, on 15.12.2011, according to the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3, accompanied by some other officers, came to the clinic and did some atrocities with regard to the smooth functioning of the clinic. Reference was also made to some insinuating circumstances connected with another accused by name 'Alex', who was a 'wanted criminal' according to the respondents, and was pursuing such activities of import, contrary to the provisions of law. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in no way connected with the nefarious activities and that, the import of the car as effected by the petitioner is well W.P.(C) No. 35124 of 2011 -:3:- within the four walls of law and that the proceedings have become final. The petitioner submits that, with the ulterior motive, the respondents are regularly coming to the clinic, demanding the Certificate showing the medical qualification, that too, in the absence of the petitioner. This has created much hardship, loss and embarrassment to the petitioner, who virtually had to discontinue the studies; mainly at the instance of the management, who is stated as the person aggrieved. It is in the said circumstance, that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. When the matter came up for consideration on the last occasion, the learned Assistant Solicitor General sought for time to get instructions. Today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted before this Court that, the averments and allegations made in the writ petition are devoid of any merit and that there was absolutely no act of harassment at any point of time. It is also stated that in connection with the crimes committed by a person by name Alex that since the car was imported through the aforesaid Alex, W.P.(C) No. 35124 of 2011 -:4:- respondents 3 and 4 wanted to collect some particulars and it was only at this particular circumstance, that Ext.P2 summons was issued and that, the same can never be treated as an instance of harassment. The learned counsel submits that the respondents 3 and 4 will never pursue any such activities as alleged and that the requirement was only for the purpose of verification of the address.

6. We record the above submission. We also find from Ext.P1 that the person by name 'Alex' was very much a party to the proceedings, which culminated vide Ext.P1 order. This being the position, the identity of the person who is doing the crimes as referred to in the proceedings, was never a new person, as far as the respondents are concerned. In the above circumstances, recording the submission as aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition, making it clear that the petitioner shall never be let to any sort of harassment in connection with the issue projected in this writ petition. However, it is made clear, that this will not prevent the respondents from pursuing the matter with regard to the crime, if W.P.(C) No. 35124 of 2011 -:5:- any, connected with the person by name 'Alex C. Joseph' in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge.