ORDER 1. Heard Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kinshuk Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The second respondent-M/s Modern Syntax (India) Ltd. stored 27 Sulzer Machines in the warehouse of the petitioner some time in the year 1995. The said machines were auctioned by the Customs Department in the year 1999 so as to realize the outstanding custom dues. Since the machines were lying in the warehouse of the petitioner, they were put in its Supurdgi on 06.01.1999. The petitioner on the directions of the Customs Department handed the machines to the auction purchasers in the year 2022. In other words, the said machines in Supurdgi of the petitioner remained in its warehouse from 1999 to 2020. 3. The petitioner in the above background has preferred this writ petition seeking direction upon the Customs Department to pay storage charges for the use and occupation of the warehouse out of the sale proceeds realized by it from the auction of the machines. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is entitled to the storage charges for the period 1999 to 2020. The said storage charges are first liable to be paid out of the sale proceeds of the auction of the machines. Secondly, the sale proceeds have to be adjusted and the petitioner is entitled to payment of its dues in accordance with Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act of 1962'). It is further submitted that the custom duty on the auctioned goods/machines has to be calculated as per the CBIC Circular No.71/2001-Cus dated 28.11.2001 by applying backward calculation method and after adjusting only that much of custom duty so determined in the above manner, the rest of the amount has to be paid to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Kinshuk Jain, learned counsel appearing for first respondent i.e. Commissioner of Customs submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any payment or the storage charges of the above machines as at the time when the machines were given in the Supurdgi of the petitioner, an undertaking in writing was given on its behalf that it will not charge any storage charges. 6. 6. It may not be out of context to mention here that the custom dues were approximately to the tune of Rs.277 lacks and that the machines were auctioned for an approximate amount of Rs.136 lacks only, therefore, apparently sale consideration received from the auction was not even sufficient to satisfy the customs dues. 7. Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for the procedure for the sale of goods and the application of the sale proceeds. It inter alia provides that where goods are sold by public auction, the proceeds thereof shall be applied, first for payment of the expenses of the sale; next for payment of the freight and other charges, if any; next by payment of duty, if any, on the goods sold and; next for the payment of the charges in respect of the goods sold due to the person having the custody of the goods. 8. The aforesaid Section 150 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:- '150. Procedure for sale of goods and application of sale proceeds. (1) Where any goods not being confiscated goods are to be sold under any provisions of this Act, they shall, after notice to the owner thereof, be sold by public auction or by tender or with the consent of the owner in any other manner. (2) The proceeds of any such sale shall be applied- (a) firstly to the payment of the expenses of the sale, (b) next to the payment of the freight and other charges, if any, payable in respect of the goods sold, to the carrier, if notice of such charges has been given to the person having custody of the goods, (c) next to the payment of the duty, if any, on the goods sold, (d) next to the payment of the charges in respect of the goods sold due to the person having the custody of the goods, (e) next to the payment of any amount due from the owner of the goods to the Central Government under the provisions of this Act or any other law relating to customs, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the owner of the goods. [Provided that where it is not possible to pay the balance of sale proceeds, if any, to the owner of the goods within a period of six months from the date of sale of such goods or such further period as the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] may allow, such balance of sale proceeds shall be paid to the Central Government.]' 9. A reading of the aforesaid provision would reveal that the custom due ranks higher in priority than the payment of storage charges of the goods due to the person having the custody of the goods. 10. In view of the aforesaid provision and the admitted position that the sale consideration realized from the auction of the machines was to be first utilized for satisfying the custom dues. The sale consideration realized was not even sufficient to satisfy the custom dues, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any payment. The determination of the custom due is not the subject matter of this writ petition and cannot be assessed and determined in this petition. 11. The record of the writ petition contains the Supurdginama dated 06.01.1999. It clearly states that the goods were put in the Supurdgi of the petitioner with the clear understanding that no charge or any rent or any other amount for the safe custody of the goods shall be charged by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid Supurdginama and the understanding contained therein, the petitioner is again not entitled to any payment of storage charges. 12. Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid Supurdginama is not binding upon the petitioner inasmuch as the person executing the same on behalf of the petitioner was not authorized to do so. The petitioner at this juncture, cannot be permitted to take the above plea when it had not taken any steps to get the said Supurdginama modified, revoked or cancelled. It may also be stated that on a query made to the counsel for the petitioner, he fairly accepted that no action was taken by the petitioner against the Officer, who had executed the said Supurdginama on its behalf. The aforesaid Supurdginama was executed by Junior Superintendent of the Central Warehousing, Alwar, Rajasthan. No action whatsoever was taken against him for executing it without having any authority. The aforesaid Supurdginama was executed by Junior Superintendent of the Central Warehousing, Alwar, Rajasthan. No action whatsoever was taken against him for executing it without having any authority. At the same time, the petitioner also failed to initiate any steps to get the aforesaid Supurdginama cancelled or modified so as to get the undertaking deleted. The said document had remained in existence for more than twenty years well within the knowledge of the petitioner, but with no recourse. 13. On account of the aforesaid Supurdginama and the undertaking contained therein, the petitioner is not entitled to any storage charges. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to one of its representations dated 04.11.2020 addressed to the Commissioner of Customs for the apportionment of the sale proceeds of the above machines as per Section 150 of the Act, so as to satisfy its dues amounting to Rs.5.77 crores as on 31.07.2020. 15. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Customs had informed the petitioner in writing that the request for apportionment of the sale proceeds is under consideration. 16. The petitioner may have represented to the Commissioner of Customs for the apportionment of the sale proceeds and for payment of the storage charges and the department may have intimated that the request is under consideration, but under the admitted facts and circumstances, no payment can be made to the petitioner towards the storage charges; first in view of the Supurdginama of the year 1999 which contains on unequal terms on behalf of the petitioner that it will not charge anything for such storage and secondly, for the reason that under Section 150 of the Act, the petitioner stands lower in priority then the custom dues in the matter of payment of dues and it is only after satisfying the claims of the custom dues that the balance sale proceeds could have been paid to the petitioner. Admittedly, after satisfaction of the custom dues, no surplus remained so as to satisfy the custom dues, if any of the petitioner. 17. Thus, in the overall facts and circumstances, we do not deem it proper to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and dismisses the petition with liberty to the petitioner to claim its dues, if so advised, by instituting a civil suit. 18. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.