Ashok Bhushan, Ag.C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for 4th and 6th respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed as a 'public interest litigation' praying for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') to conduct a re-investigation in the matter referred to in Exts.P1 and P2 and to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against those who are responsible for the auction of Nokia cell phone batteries having market value of Rs.1,22,60,900/- for a reduced price of Rs.5,26,777/- and further for a direction to recover the loss sustained by Government of India in the matter of 9850 Nokia batteries seized and disposed of.
3. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin Regional Unit has seized the contraband goods found in the baggage received in the name of Sri.Muhammed Rafi P.M., and notice was issued by the additional Commissioner for Central Excise and Customs to show cause as to why the cell phone batteries valued at Rs.1,22,60,900 should not be confiscated to Government under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs passed an order, Ext.P2 dated 30.08.2004, confiscating 9850 numbers of unclaimed mobile phone batteries. The goods were disposed of in an auction at the price of Rs.6,17,616/- including sale proceedings which were directed to be appropriated to Government account.
4. After the aforesaid auction, certain complaints were sent to the Government of India, Centre for Vigilance Commission, who by its letter dated 22.07.2006, observed that the manner in which batteries were disposed of indicate the possibility of connivance of customs officials with DRI and the auction purchasers. The Commission decided that CBI may investigate the matter and report to the Commission at the earliest. CBI conducted the investigation and made reports. The CBI has recommended initiation of major penalty proceedings against certain officials. But the Commission advised issuance of only administrative warning to the officials concerned as per OM dated 27.02.2007, since only procedural infirmities have been seen in the case which were not grave enough to warrant any disciplinary proceedings.
5. Referring to the aforesaid facts, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs as noted above. The writ petition claims to have been filed as public interest litigation seeking reinvestigation and detailed enquiry by CBI.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by 6th respondent several facts have been mentioned pleading that the petitioner is not a person at whose instance the writ petition can be entertained. It has been stated that against the petitioner an order on COFEPOSA Act was issued on 23.01.1996 and he is also involved in dealing foreign currency without authority. We need not go into said allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by 6th respondent.
7. After the statutory proceedings of confiscation and auction, on a complaint received, the Government of India has directed enquiry by CBI which having been completed and the investigation report having been looked and considered by the Central Vigilance Commission, appropriate directions have been issued. Hence we do not see any necessity to issue any direction for reinvestigation as prayed by the petitioner in this public interest litigation petition. The complaint received had been enquired and met with properly. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/26/11