Court orders prompt review of representation for release, sets two-week deadline. All contentions open, no opinion on merits.

The Court directed respondent No.2 to promptly forward the petitioner's representation for provisional release to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was instructed to decide on the representation within two weeks. The Court clarified that while the prayer was abridged, all contentions in the writ petition remained open, and no opinion was expressed on the case's merits. The writ petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in disposing of representation for provisional release under Section 110-A of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2019 promptly. The representation was regarding provisional release under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned counsel for the petitioner abridged the prayer during the hearing, focusing on expeditious disposal of the said representation.

The representation in question had two addressees, with respondent No.3 being the first addressee and respondent No.2 being the second addressee. The Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 stated that the representation pertained to provisional release under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the decision on the matter should be made by respondents 1 and 2. On the other hand, the Revenue Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 mentioned that due to the consignment's value being over Rs. 2 crores, the request in the representation should be considered by respondent No.1, the Commissioner of Customs.

Considering the urgency due to the potential deterioration of the consignment, the Court decided to pass certain orders. It was directed that respondent No.2 should forward the representation to respondent No.1 promptly. Respondent No.1 was instructed to consider and decide on the representation within a fortnight from the date of the order. The order passed by respondent No.1 should be communicated to the petitioner promptly. The Court clarified that while the prayer was abridged, all contentions in the writ petition remained open, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the directions mentioned above, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.

---