ORDER
1. Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the gold ornaments seized from the petitioner on 23-12-1985. The petition is directed against the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad and Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) 36, Gandhi Nagar Digra, Varanasi who have been arrayed as respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. As per the writ assertions the petitioner Smt. Gopi M. Puri owned a locker being locker No. 62 with the Union Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad. The said locker was searched on 23-12-1986 by the Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) when 12 gold lockets were seized as per search memo, a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, after the said seizure no action whatsoever or proceedings were taken by the respondents against the petitioner or in respect of the articles seized. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition on 29th March, 1988 claiming the relief as set out earlier with further allegations that on the petitioner's application moved before the respondents for return of gold ornaments, no orders were made by the respondents.
3. At the admission stage two separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 no attempt has been made to justify the seizure. The relief claimed by the petitioner for return of articles is also not resisted on merits. The only objection taken is that the respondent No. 2 is in a fix to decide as to whom the artricles should be returned namely to the petitioner or to her son Ashok Puri. It is asserted that the seizure was effected under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and at the relevant time the said bank locker was held in the joint name of the petitioner and her son Ashok Puri. Further, the Petitioner was reported to be out of the country when the seizure took place. After the seizure a statement of Ashok Puri was recorded under Section 40 of the said Act where he stated that the seized articles had been gifted to him by certain persons who were residing outside India at the relevant time. Thus, according to the respondent No. 2 there is a contradiction in statement of Ashok Puri and the petitioner who is now claiming the disputed articles as her own property through this petition.
6. Having considered the matter carefully. We find no substance in the case put forward by the respondent No. 2.
7. 1 n the writ petition there is a clear averment that the locker was initially hired by the petitioner and her husband and their son Ashok Puri in the year 1982. The petitioner's husband died in the year 1984. The name of Ashok Puri was associated with a view to facilitate its operation as the petitioner and her husband were both old persons and were not in a position to run about frequently. These assertions have not been denied in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents. It is also not the case of the respondents that any person other than the petitioner has come forward to claim the articles which were seized from the locker. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in this petition.
8. In addition to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 a separate application has also been filed on his behalf. Both in the counter-affidavit and in the application is asserted that the respondent No. 1 has unnecessarily been impleaded in the petition and his name be deleted from the array of parties. It is further asserted that the articles which were seized by respondent No. 2 are liable for seizure Under Section 8(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and the notification issued Under Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and respondent No. 1 may be given liberty to take action under the said provisions in case, this Court decides to release the seized articles to the petitioner.
9. On the contrary the petitioner claims that the action if any under the Gold Control Act for adjudication Under Section 79 of the said Act could have been taken within six months of the seizure. No action having been taken in that regard, the articles seized are liable to be returned unconditionally. Be that as it any, we do not think it necessary for (he purpose of the present writ petition to go into merits of respective claims and the stand taken by the parties. We also do not think necessary to express any opinion as to whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled to take any action against the petitioner under the Gold Control Act.
10. In view of that has been stated earlier, we allow this petition and direct the respondent No. 2 to return the articles seized from locker No. 62 with the Union Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad as per seizure memo dated 23rd December, 1985.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.