Review recall and mandamus for release of seized gold after challan issuance and deposit of redemption fine and penalty.

The Court recalled its earlier summary dismissal of the writ petition because the correct facts and relevant papers had not been placed before it, treating the omission as sufficient cause on the peculiar facts to restore the petition to its original number. It also directed the excise authority to issue the challan needed for deposit of the redemption fine and penalty, holding that the absence of an expressly worded prayer for release of the seized gold did not defeat the substance of the request. The review was allowed, the writ petition was restored, and mandamus issued to facilitate deposit and return of the gold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order dismissing the writ petition summarily should be recalled in review on the ground that material facts had not been brought to the Court's notice; (ii) Whether a direction should issue to the excise authority to provide the challan enabling deposit of redemption fine and penalty so that the seized gold could be released.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order dismissing the writ petition summarily should be recalled in review on the ground that material facts had not been brought to the Court's notice.

Analysis: The material placed in the review showed that the earlier dismissal had resulted from non-placement of the correct facts and relevant papers before the Court. Treating the matter as exceptional on its peculiar facts, the Court found sufficient cause to reopen the matter and restore the writ petition to its original number.

Conclusion: The review was allowed and the earlier dismissal order was recalled.

Issue (ii): Whether a direction should issue to the excise authority to provide the challan enabling deposit of redemption fine and penalty so that the seized gold could be released.

Analysis: The Court held that the petitioner had sought the challan for deposit of the amounts necessary to secure return of the gold, and that the authority ought to have acted on the application. The absence of an expressly worded prayer for withdrawal of gold did not defeat the substance of the request in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: A mandamus was issued directing the authority to provide the challan, and upon deposit of the fine and penalty, the gold was to be returned.

Final Conclusion: The review succeeded, the writ petition was restored, and substantive relief was granted to enable deposit of the dues and release of the seized gold.

---