Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 294 (JHR)

Anil Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-03-18

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

body2004
ORDER 1. From the order passed in L.P.A. No. 639 of 2001, which the petitioner has prayed for review, it appears that the appeal was disposed of the modifying the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1403 of 2000 (R). 2. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the said writ application with the following order which is quoted herein-below : "In the aforesaid background, the respondents, being liable to return the goods seized, if any of it stood stolen away from the place of storage, are bound to refund the amount to be calculated at the market rate. Accordingly, they are directed to make it good in favour of the petitioner by return of goods or paying the market price thereof with interest at the rate of 8% within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order." 3. Therefore, what appears from the order quoted above is that the learned Single Judge directed either to return the goods to the writ petitioner or to pay the market price thereof with interest at the rate of 8% within two months, 4. In L.P.A. No. 639 of 2001 the said order of the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent that the amount calculated by the licensee on the basis of the market rate at a sum of Rs. 24,35,520/-which was directed to be paid to the writ petitioner with 8% interest was altered by holding that he would be entitled to get the price of seized goods, which were stolen away, on the rate, the goods other than those articles, which were stolen away, were sold in the year 1998 subject to the final decision of the Deputy Commissioner regarding the rate as per the order dated 1.7.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1628 of 1998. 5. 5. The order of the learned Single Judge was also modified to the extent that the writ petitioner was not entitled to get interest at 8% per annum over the amount to be paid to him for the reasons stated in paragraph 16 of the order namely, on the ground that the case of the State Government was that those seized goods were stolen away by the licensee and/or his relation and for which a criminal case was pending against them and hence he is not entitled to any amount of interest in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. What has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner for reviewing the order is that while passing the order in appeal, the Division Bench did not consider the pleadings/statements made in certain paragraphs of the reply filed by the writ petitioner to the counter-affidavit in the original writ petition and further that the findings recorded by the appellate Court to the effect that the case reported in Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, AIR 1999 SC 3643 was not applicable, is contrary to the records. Assuming that there is any merit in these submissions, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 639 of 2001. 7. This Court does not find any material to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is any error apparent in the order passed in L.P.A. No. 639 of 2001. Therefore, in our view, no case at all is made out for a review of the order dated 13.1.2003 passed in L.P.A. No. 639 of 2001, this Civil Review application is accordingly dismissed.