Ashok Manikadan.M v. The Airport Director / Airport Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA M.Ashok Manikandan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Airport Director/Airport Manager, Madurai Airport, Madurai-22.

2.The Customs Officer, Customs Office, Madurai Airport, Madurai -22.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to return the petitioner's 1000 Singapore Dollar which was seized by the second respondent on 06.02.2020 by considering petitioner's representation dated 23.03.2021. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Balakrishnan

For R1 :

Mr.C.Godwin For R2 :

Mr.N.Dilipkumar Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to the second respondent to return 1000 Singapore Dollars, which the petitioner alleges that was seized from him on 06.02.2020, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.03.2021.

2. It is the petitioner's case that on the said date, he was coming to Madurai from Singapore on the Air India flight. The second respondent had checked his belongings and at that point of time, the aforesaid money was seized by the second respondent. The petitioner would submit that this money was his monthly salary given to him. However, the second respondent had not returned the money, despite several representations given by the petitioner. On 22.03.2021, he had contacted the office of the second respondent, where an evasive response was given by the

second respondent. Therefore, he submitted a detailed representation to respondents 1 and 2, who despite receiving, have not responded to the same.

3. Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the second respondent, would submit that there is no record for the seizure, as there was no seizure of any article from the petitioner. He would submit that the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are absolutely false.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. The petitioner has not been able to let in any evidence to show that he had carried 1000 Singapore Dollars on the given date, particularly when it is his case that it is his last month salary. As to why the salary is being carried in cash has also not been explained and that apart, no details about the employment has also been provided. Be that as it may, since there is no record for the seizure, which, had there been a seizure

would have been recorded, there is no merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 21.06.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr

To 1.The Airport Director/Airport Manager, Madurai Airport, Madurai-22.

2. The Customs Officer, Customs Office, Madurai Airport, Madurai -22.

P.T.ASHA, J.

abr Dated: 21.06.2023