Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This writ petition has been filed by nine Petitioners in rather unusual circumstances. Of the nine Petitioners, the first two are thelawalas (cart pullers) and the other seven have described themselves as 'Angadias,' i.e., persons engaged in the business of arranging transportation of goods through road and rail.

2. The subject matter of the writ petition concerns the seizure by the Respondent, Commissioner of Trade and Taxes (CTT) in the Department of Trade and Taxes (DT&T) of 24 cartons containing gold and silver jewellery as well as cash worth nearly Rs. 4 crores found loaded on two thelas (goods carts) at around 10.30 am on 1st March 2014 from the railway parcel van of the Ahmedabad Express which arrived at the Old Delhi Railway Station. According to the Petitioners, the said 24 cartons were meant for delivery to the seven Angadias (Petitioners 3 to 9) having been despatched by some parties in Gujarat.

20. A careful perusal of the writ petition reveals that it has a list of dates which, in para 2 of the writ petition, is asked to be treated as part of the writ petition. The writ petition itself has only three paragraphs, followed by the grounds and documents. The version of the Petitioners has, therefore, to be gleaned only from the list of dates. Even according to the Petitioners, as stated in the list of dates, the Petitioners 1 and 2 were thela pullers from whom the goods were seized by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement-II on 1st March 2014. A specific query was posed to Mr. Rajesh Jain, to show from anywhere in the writ petition an averment that any of the Angadias, i.e., Petitioners 3 to 9 had accompanied the two thelas at the time when the goods were detained. There is not a single averment in the entire petition or even the rejoinder to that effect. Mr. Jain was then asked to show any averment to the effect that the Angadias had in their possession, at the relevant time, complete documents which could show ownership of the goods. There is not a single averment in that respect as well. What is stated, again from the list of dates i.e. 28th February 2014, is to the following effect:

"In each carton, Angadias would invariably place the documents which disclose the name of the consignor and the consignee, details of the goods like quantity, description and also the value of such goods. To make out as to which carton is of which Angadia, each carton would have a mark of the Angadia's names in their short forms. Further the cartons would be tied or stitched with a rope which would be different in colour for each Angadia".

21. Significantly, in respect of the goods which were detained on 1st March 2014, there is no averment that the detained cartons contained those documents.

23. There are several questions that arise in the manner in which the Petitioners 3 to 9 have gone about their tasks as angadias. The Petitioners in list of dates stated that "Angadias in their normal course of business, transport the goods through Railways from one State to another and as carriers of goods, deliver the same to the respective parties whose details are available with them". Why would the above system of transporting the goods through Railways be adopted for transporting valuable gold and silver jewellery as well as cash, which ,according to the Petitioners, are valued at Rs.3,92,32,659 in the above manner is not clear. It seems extremely unusual that goods of the above description were being transported in the cartons, kept in a Railway van and were then loaded on to thelas of Petitioners 1 and 2, without being accompanied by any of the angadias.