Court quashes order to vacate premises, allows Customs Authorities to seek possession. Sale of flat subject to conditions.

The court quashed the order directing the Petitioners to vacate the premises and granted Customs Authorities liberty to seek possession through due process. The court clarified that this order does not prevent the sale of the residential flat by Customs Authorities, subject to conditions, and made the rule absolute with no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of attachment dated 19 June 1998.
2. Entitlement of the Petitioners to use and occupy the residential flat until the security deposit is refunded with interest.
3. Authenticity and genuineness of the leave and licence agreement.
4. Due process of law in dispossessing the Petitioners from the property.
5. Legitimacy of the attachment notice levied by the Customs Authorities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order of Attachment Dated 19 June 1998:
The Petitioners contended that the order of attachment is a nullity and without jurisdiction, arguing that the flat belongs to the Seventh Respondent, a company, which was not a defaulter. The Customs Authorities, however, contended that N.K. Bangard, who admitted to fraudulent activities, voluntarily surrendered the flat during adjudication proceedings. The court noted that the Seventh Respondent, as the owner, did not challenge the attachment notice, and thus declined to entertain the challenge at the behest of the Petitioners.

2. Entitlement to Use and Occupy the Flat:
The Petitioners argued that they are entitled to occupy the flat until the security deposit is refunded with interest, citing a Division Bench judgment. The court observed that the Petitioners have been in use and occupation of the flat since at least July 1998 and have paid licence fees to the Customs Authorities until March 2012. The court directed that the Petitioners shall not be deprived of the flat's use and occupation unless the Customs Authorities take recourse to due process of law.

3. Authenticity and Genuineness of the Leave and Licence Agreement:
The Customs Authorities challenged the authenticity of the leave and licence agreement, noting discrepancies in the documents provided by the Petitioners. The court found that the discrepancies and the lack of an original agreement indicated that it would be inappropriate to determine the document's authenticity under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Due Process of Law in Dispossessing the Petitioners:
The court emphasized that the Petitioners' dispossession from the property must follow due process of law. The Customs Authorities had made a statement before the court in an earlier writ petition that dispossession would occur only after following due process. The court found that merely addressing letters to vacate the premises did not constitute due process of law. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs had not exercised any statutory power enabling an eviction order.

5. Legitimacy of the Attachment Notice:
The court did not find it necessary to consider the legitimacy of the attachment notice, particularly since the Seventh Respondent did not challenge it and the licence agreement was disputed. The court declined to undertake this exercise at the Petitioners' behest.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside the order dated 10 August 2012 by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs that called upon the Petitioners to vacate the premises. The Customs Authorities were granted liberty to seek possession through due process of law. The court also clarified that the order would not interdict the sale of the residential flat by the Customs Authorities, subject to the stated conditions. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.

---