Court dismisses petition challenging search and seizure legality, emphasizing due process; petitioners' non-compliance leads to dismissal.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the legality of search and seizure, withholding of procurement certificates, and petitioners' non-cooperation with the investigation. Emphasizing that Article 226 cannot be used to obstruct due process, the court noted petitioners' non-compliance and disregard for court orders, leading to the plea's dismissal. Interim reliefs were vacated, and a request to suspend the order was denied, with no observations made on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of search and seizure conducted by respondent authorities.
2. Withholding of Procurement Certificates by respondent authorities.
3. Petitioners' non-cooperation with investigation.
4. Petitioners' request for procedural safeguards during inquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Search and Seizure Conducted by Respondent Authorities:
The petitioners challenged the search and seizure conducted on 14-2-2008, claiming it was unconstitutional, illegal, and void. They sought the return of seized documents, records, and computers. The court found no dispute regarding the respondents' legal authority to inspect the premises, seize documents, and initiate proceedings for investigation. The petitioners had already initiated civil and criminal proceedings regarding the alleged misconduct during the raid. The court noted that the petitioners did not lodge an immediate complaint about the alleged manhandling, which was only reported on 28-2-2008, and subsequently filed a complaint before the Magistrate and a Special Civil Suit for damages and defamation.

2. Withholding of Procurement Certificates by Respondent Authorities:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare the withholding of Procurement Certificates as unconstitutional and illegal. They requested the court to direct the respondent authorities to issue the certificates. The court initially granted interim relief on 4-4-2008, allowing the issuance of duty-free import/procurement certificates upon the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 12.50 lacs. The petitioners were required to comply with the directions and safeguards suggested by the respondents. The court emphasized that the petitioners must cooperate with the investigation, which they failed to do.

3. Petitioners' Non-Cooperation with Investigation:
The court observed that despite being summoned multiple times, neither Petitioner No. 2 nor his brother Mukesh Sayani appeared before the respondent authorities. The petitioners cited apprehensions of being mishandled or falsely implicated as reasons for non-compliance. The respondents argued that the petition was an attempt to thwart the investigation and that the petitioners had not come with clean hands. The court noted the petitioners' non-cooperation and their scant regard for the law, legal system, and court orders. The petitioners' conduct demonstrated an attempt to obstruct the due process of law.

4. Petitioners' Request for Procedural Safeguards During Inquiry:
In Civil Application No. 5050/2008, the petitioners sought directions for the respondent authorities to send a list of queries during the investigation and to permit questioning in the presence of a lawyer. The court allowed the petitioners' advocate to be present during interrogation but at a distance where he could see the proceedings without interfering. Despite this protection, the petitioners failed to appear before the respondent authorities, citing apprehensions. The court found the petitioners' apprehensions to be disingenuous and noted that their non-cooperation hindered the lawful investigation process.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to support a citizen's attempt to obstruct the due process of law. The petitioners' non-cooperation and disregard for court directions led to the dismissal of their plea. The court vacated the interim reliefs and clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the case. A request to suspend the operation of the order was also turned down.

---