Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Supriya Chokhara, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging a communication dated 25/30 July 2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), M&P Wing, Mumbai (respondent No.2). The communication was addressed to the Secretary of Pushpa Niketan Co-operative Housing Society, directing the society not to permit the petitioner to transfer her flat No.406-B without prior 'No Objection' (NOC) from the Customs office. The reason cited was that respondent No.2 had initiated certain investigations against the petitioner's husband, Shri Anil B. Chokhara. The petitioner alleged that a copy of the communication was never forwarded to her and she came to know of it only recently from the society. The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto to direct respondent No.2 to show under what authority he issued the letter, and to quash and set aside the communication. The court examined whether the Deputy Commissioner of Customs had any legal authority to issue such a direction. The court noted that no provision of the Customs Act, 1962, including sections relating to seizure or attachment, empowers a Customs officer to restrain a third party (the society) from permitting transfer of property owned by a person not under investigation. The court held that the communication was without jurisdiction, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution (right to property), and liable to be quashed. The court allowed the petition, quashed the communication, and directed the society to permit the petitioner to transfer her flat without any hindrance from the Customs authorities.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Quo Warranto - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Challenge to communication by Customs officer directing society to restrain property transfer - Court held that the officer had no authority under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law to issue such a direction, and the communication was without jurisdiction and violative of Article 300A (Right to Property) - Held that the writ of quo warranto is maintainable to question the authority of a public officer to issue such a direction (Paras 1-8). B) Customs Law - Restraint on Property Transfer - Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 110, 124 - Investigation against husband does not empower Customs to restrain wife's property transfer without any order of attachment or seizure - Held that no provision of the Customs Act authorizes such a communication, and the same is illegal and set aside (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had the authority to issue a communication directing a housing society not to permit transfer of a flat owned by the petitioner without prior NOC from the Customs office, and whether such communication is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the communication dated 25/30 July 2014, and directed the society to permit the petitioner to transfer her flat without any hindrance from the Customs authorities.
Law Points
- Writ of Quo Warranto
- Article 226
- Article 300A
- Customs Act 1962
- Right to Property
- No authority to restrain transfer without statutory power
