TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (11) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir premises at No. 1, Balaram Dey St., Calcutta from their respective rooms. The previous writ petition which I have just now disposed of by a judgment and order relates to the authorisation for search and seizure of the premises of the petitioners. The present writ petition relates to the seizure of the goods also under the Gold Control Act, 1968. This application in addition to challenging the search and seizure the petitioners have challenged the authorisation issued under Section 58 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, which could not be challenged in the previous writ petition as the petitioners were not aware of the same. As all the facts and law are practically covered by the previous judgment and order I am not dealing with the same once....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the Respondents from searching or seizing the articles under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act. 3. I have carefully considered the letter of D.N. Bhattacharya, the then Solicitor, acting on behalf the petitioners dated 10th September, and 11th of September, 1976 and also the letter dated the 8th September, 1976, by the petitioners to the Respondent No. 2 S.P. Choudhury. It appears "that the petitioners were under the impression that by moving a writ petition challenging the authorisation for search and seizure by the previous applications they could prevent the search and seizure of the article according to law without obtaining any interim injunction restraining the respondents from acting under the law and discharged their duties. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondents were justified in executing the said authorisation for search and seizure under section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 58 of the Gold Control Act as various goods have been seized in respect of which investigation should proceed according to law. The petitioners also threatened the respondents with criminal contempt after making the first writ petition and obtaining the rule therein only to delay or prevent the execution of the search and seizure if .possible. The petitioners seem to have made reckless allegations in the petition against the respondents which have been specifically denied and in my considered view there is no substance in such allegations of the petitioners which have been made solely to prejudice the min....