ORDER : J.B.PARDIWALA, J. 1. On 28.04.2022, this Court passed the following order: “1. We have heard Mr. Tirth Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant. 2. Prima-facie, it appears that a very high-handed arbitrary action on the part of the respondent no.5 herein has dragged the writ-applicant to a second round of litigation. 3. We take notice of the fact that the writ-applicant had come before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.14849 of 2021 essentially with a prayer that the consignment comprising Chinese Knotted Woollen Carpets detained on 06.01.2021 by the respondent no.2 may be ordered to be released. 4. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court to which one of us [Ms. Nisha M. Thakore, J] was a party after exhaustive hearing delivered a detailed judgment disposing of the writ application with appropriate directions and observations. We quote the observations made in Paragraphs-31, 32 and 33 respectively as under:- “31. We notice that the petitioner, on one hand, has approached this Court by preferring the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and he has chosen not to cooperate to complete the pending inquiry in relation to M/s. Kaka Carpets and on the other hand, he has furnished the bond before this Court and has ensured to cooperate with that inquiry. Both being separate issues and his medical condition, since did not permit him to approach in a fortnight time, with his specific assurance to the respondent, objection raised is not worth sustaining. The Court is of the opinion that there is a sufficient and independent devise and mechanism under the law for him to appear and assist the inquiry/investigation. However, the applicant’s non-appearance from inquiry cannot be a valid ground for the authority to hold back his goods without following any legal procedure as contemplated under the law of seizure and, hence, the release should be made immediately within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order on following due procedure of law. 32. It is to be noted that there is no dearth of power with the respondent for it to seize the goods and provisional release could have been also permitted in such eventuality. Here neither the seizure is made nor any other proceedings pursuant to the lackadaisical approach to the summons is addressed. 32. It is to be noted that there is no dearth of power with the respondent for it to seize the goods and provisional release could have been also permitted in such eventuality. Here neither the seizure is made nor any other proceedings pursuant to the lackadaisical approach to the summons is addressed. And, therefore, this Court needs to show indulgence without even entering into the binding decision of Canon India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) of the Supreme Court. 33. Petition is allowed. Consignment of carpets of the petitioner shall be released without loss of time within a week of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner shall abide by his undertaking without fail. The petitioner is also permitted to request for demurrage to the respondent, which shall consider the said request in wake of the findings and observations made herein on following due process of law.” 5. Thus, despite there being a direction to release the consignment of Carpets without any further delay, till this date, the consignment has not been released as the respondent no.5 is demanding demurrage charges to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Only]. The total value of the goods is Rs.16,00,000/- [Rupees Sixteen Lakh only]. 6. Our attention was drawn to a Communication dated 02.02.2022 by the Deputy Commissioner (SIIB), Customs House, Mundra to the Deputy Commissioner, Dock Examination (DE), Mundra stating as under:- “OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, MUNDRA CUSTOM, 5-B PORT USER BUILDING (PUB), MP & SEZ, PORT ROAD, MUNDRA Phone 02838-271162/271421 FAX : 02838-271421 Email: (not readable) P.No.5/20-01/ not readable BA CHM2021-22 Date 02.002.2022 To, The Deputy Commissioner, Dock Examination (DE), CN, Mundra. Sir, Subject: Release of the cargo/goods-Reg. Please refer to the above mentioned subject. In this regard, it is to inform that examination of the goods imported under Bills of Entry No.4956991 dated 06/8/2021 was carried out by the Officers of Dock Examination. In view of the above, the cargo/ goods may be released after completion of customs clearance procedure as prescribed under Customs Act, 1962. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Mukesh Kumar Karela) Deputy Commissioner (SIIB) Customs House, Mundra Copy to: 1. The Manage, EWC CPS, Mundra Port to allow delivery once DOC granted.” 7. Issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 05.05.2022. The respondent no.4 shall be served through Email and the other respondents shall be served directly. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Mukesh Kumar Karela) Deputy Commissioner (SIIB) Customs House, Mundra Copy to: 1. The Manage, EWC CPS, Mundra Port to allow delivery once DOC granted.” 7. Issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 05.05.2022. The respondent no.4 shall be served through Email and the other respondents shall be served directly. On the returnable date, notify this matter on top of the board. Direct service today is permitted.” 2. Today, Mr. Ashish Verma, the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 before us is the shipping line. Mr. Verma would submit that unless and until the dues recoverable from the writ applicant towards the container detention charges are not paid, the writ applicant should not be permitted to lift the goods. According to him, his client has a contractual lien. 3. Mr. Verma would submit that his argument referred to above is fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai Port Trust Vs. M/s. Shri Lakshmi Steels and Ors., Civil Appeal No.9831-32 of 2017 decided on 27.07.2017, more particularly, the observations made in para 46 and 47 thereunder. The same read thus: “46. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that even though there may be some delay on the part of the DRI and the customs authorities, the respondent-importers have also been guilty of delaying the matter and, therefore, they cannot claim that they are not liable to pay demurrage and detention charges. We may, however, clarify that the respondent-importers are free to approach the Mumbai Port Trust in terms of Section 53 of the Act for exemption and remission of demurrage and other charges and the Board may take a sympathetic view while considering the case of the respondent-importers under Section 53. 47. As far as detention charges of the Shipping Line are concerned, in addition to what we have observed above, we are of the view that the High Court could not in writ proceedings have directed the DRI/Customs to pay the detention charges to the Shipping Line since these were to be paid on the basis of a contract between the respondent importers and the shipping line. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondent-importers are dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondent-importers are dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.” 4. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Tirth Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant invited our attention to one order passed by this Court in the case of Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Directors Akhilesh Manglik Vs. Commissioner of Customs in Special Civil Application No.10082 of 2020 decided on 12.01.2022, wherein this Court took the view that the customs cargo service provider as defined in the Regulation No.2(1)(b) of the Regulations is not entitled in law to charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Customs or any other Authority. However, according to Mr. Verma, the order of this Court in the case of Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is with respect to ground rent charges and not helpful to the writ applicant. 5. We propose to admit this writ application and pass an interim order reserving the liberty in favour of the respondent No.5 to raise all the legal contentions available to him including his contention as regards his contractual lien. 6. Rule returnable on 23.08.2022. Mr. Ukarash Sharma, the learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Ashish Verma, the learned counsel waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.5. 7. By way of an interim order, we direct the respondent No.5 to release the goods on or before 11.05.2022 subject to the final outcome of this writ application. 8. All the larger issues involved shall be looked into on the returnable date, however, we are of the view that at least the goods should be ordered to be released. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.5 is ordered to be taken on record. Direct service is permitted.