Recurring import detention disputes cannot be treated as infructuous when the legal issue affects future clearances and repeat consignments.

A writ petition is not rendered infructuous merely because one consignment has been cleared where the dispute is recurring and likely to arise again in respect of similar imports. The Court noted that repeated detention of similar goods could force fresh litigation on each occasion, causing avoidable delay and loss, and that the relief sought extended beyond release of a single consignment to the applicability of the food safety regime and future clearances. The disposal of the petition on infructuousness was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the matter was restored for decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be treated as infructuous merely because the particular consignment had been cleared, and whether the Court should nevertheless decide the recurring question of law arising from repeated detention of similar consignments.

Analysis: The dispute was not confined to a stray consignment. The appellant's business involved repeated import of similar goods for duty free sale, so the same difficulty was likely to recur. A petition is not rendered infructuous where the controversy is recurring and the parties would otherwise be forced to litigate afresh on each occasion, causing avoidable delay and potential loss. The reliefs sought were also broader than release of one consignment, as they challenged the applicability of the food safety regime to such imports and sought directions governing future clearances.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not infructuous and could not have been disposed of on that ground. The order disposing of the writ petition was set aside and the matter was restored for decision in accordance with law.

---