ORDER
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. These petitions are before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter at length, considering a number of cases decided on the character and nature of proceedings under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came to the conclusion that the views expressed by the various High Courts including our own High Court were at variance with each other and as such the question was required to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court and made the reference. The question formulated by the learned Single Judge is a follows :
'Whether under the scheme of the Act the proceedings under Chapter XIV should come to an end or cannot be initiated at all depending upon the validity of an order made by Collector under Section 110(2) and return of goods as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act in the event of there being no extension of time ?'
2. We may at the outset before proceeding to deal with the Writ petitions mention that Puttaswamy, J., as he then was in W.P. Nos. 4614 to 4616/1978 disposed of on 13th June, 1984 [1985 (22) E.L.T. 44 (Kar.)] did no more than hold that proceeding under Chapter XIV of the Act did not depend upon the proceeding initiated or concluded under Chapter XIII of the Act. That conclusion must be held to have been reached on the facts of those cases and not as a general proposition of law.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel and on going through the records of the case, we are of the view that the question posed for decision by Division Bench does not at all arise in the facts and circumstances of these cases. We propose to state the undisputed facts briefly and they are as follows. The petitioners are exporters of textiles. They carry on business, admittedly, at Bombay. On 3-4-1984 the officers of the Air Cargo complex attached to the Customs Authorities, Bangalore, raided two places in Bangalore and found 357 pieces of silk sarees in 8 cartons and in 14 other cartons, grey cotton long cloth and colour cloth; totally valued at Rs. 91,175-06 which were seized under a deed of mahazar of even date. Thereafter, the Collector of Customs, Bangalore-1st respondent herein issued notice dated 17-9-1984 under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act calling upon the petitioners to show why the time of six months given to the Revenue to commence proceedings for adjudication as a preclude to confiscation or release of the seized goods for violation of the terms and conditions of the licence issued under the Act or violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder (sic). The operative portion of the show cause notice reads as follows :
'..................
2. AND WHEREAS Sufficient cause has been shown to the Collector and that for good and sufficient reasons the show cause notice cannot be issued within the period of six months from the date of seizure, since further investigation which is necessary in this case is on hand and is not likely to be completed before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure.
3. NOW, THEREFORE, the above Exporters/party is called upon to show cause to COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD BANGALORE-1 as to :
WHY the time for issue of show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, should not be extended upto 3-2-1985 under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. If no cause is shown against the action proposed hereinabove on or before 24-9-1984 or if they do not appear before the COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS on 25-9-1984 at 11.00 hours for a personal hearing, in case they so desire at the Office of the Collector of Customs, Central Revenue's Building, Queen's Road, Bangalore-560 001, a decision will be taken on the basis of material on record about extension of time for issue of show cause notice sought for.'
4. Admittedly, the show cause notice as above which is at Annexure-B to the petitions was received by the petitioners on 19/20th of September, 1984 as evidenced by the order dated 26-9-1984 passed by the 1st respondent-Collector of Customs, Bangalore. None appeared on 25-9-1984 to show cause against the proposed extension by four months the period of investigation before the matter was either decided to be put for adjudication or goods released as no adjudication proceedings had become necessary. It is also apparent from the order passed under the sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act by the Collector that instead of appearing to show cause, the petitioners or their representative sent a telegram, without assigning any reason, seeking postponement of the hearing by three weeks which came to be refused and the Collector proceeded to pass an order ex parte as a Annexure-D to the petitions. Thereafter on 23-1-1985 notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued commencing the adjudication proceedings calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated in accordance with law. To that show cause notice dated 23-1-1985 as at Annexure-E to the petition, cause was shown by the petitioners indicating that one S. Venkataraman former Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs had been appointed as authorised consultant and all communication may be addressed to him thenceforward and personal hearing may be given in the matter. That letter was acknowledged by the 1st respondent Collector of Customs, Bangalore, as at Annexure-G1 dated 23-3-1985. Thereafter, one Mr. M. Shah, Advocate, High Court of Bombay set out in detail the explanation showing cause as to why the goods were not liable for confiscation. It suffices to point out two things from the said document as at Annexure-G2 bearing the date 22nd April, 1985. The first is, in the entire reply or cause shown, no reference was made to inadequacy of opportunity given by the show cause notice issued under Section 110(2) of the Act proposing to extend the time by further four months. It was next pointed out that in the light of the Supreme Court decision there was violation of natural justice in not giving a hearing to the petitioners before extending the period and therefore commencing proceedings under Section 124 of the Act for adjudication as a prelude to the confiscation was without jurisdiction. That letter was acknowledged by the Collector of Customs by his reply dated 6-5-1985 in which he pointed out the circumstances under which the show cause proposing to extend the time for four months was issued earlier in the year 1984. Once again we find, in between, by yet another advocate, a reply sent to the Collector of Customs seeking a personal hearing. In response to that request made on 23-4-1985 personal hearing was fixed for 27-5-1985 at 11.00 A.M. Instead of appearing before the Collector of Customs and pursuing the arguments in person, the petitioners appear to have moved this Court on 27-5-1985 and obtained an interim order of stay in addition to rule nisi being issued stopping all further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued as at Annexure-B and the order passed as at Annexure-D. It is only thereafter that the matter has been referred to us by the learned Single Judge after hearing the Counsel who appeared at that time in this Court.
5. What really falls for consideration is whether in the discretionary jurisdiction vested in us under Article 226 of the Constitution, we should interfere at this stage with the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent under Section 124 of the Act. We have seen, the seizure took place on 3-4-1984. The proceedings under Section 124 of the Act should have commenced, if there was a case made out for confiscation before 3-10-1984. Approximately two weeks before expiry of that period, notice as at Annexure-B came to be issued on 17-9-1984 proposing to extend the time for the reasons stated in the notice by another four months. There was no diligent response to that notice except to seek time to show cause by three weeks by a telegram. Thereafter, an ex parte order was made as at Annexure-D by which the time came to be extended to complete the investigations. By Annexure-E dated 23-1-1985 proceedings under Section 124 of the Act was commenced. The petitioners acquiesced in the proceedings so commenced by participating in it though with reservation upto the point of time when they sought a personal hearing and was granted the same. After granting of the personal hearing, they approached this Court. We find from the last letter addressed by the Collector of Customs as at Annexure-H dated 6-5-1985 that till 26-10-1984 the petitioners had not appeared and participated in the investigations after the seizure. Therefore, the reasons for extending the time was non-co-operation of the petitioners in the investigation that had commenced after the seizure. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot loose sight of that fact. The aspect has, in fact, been emphasised by the respondents in the affidavit filed in support of their application for vacating the stay at an earlier point of time in these proceedings. It the petitioners by their own conduct did not allow investigations to be completed within the statutory period of six months, so that the proceedings may either be commenced or the seized goods returned to them, then they cannot find fault with the Revenue for commencing the proceedings after extending the time for investigation. Regard being had to the acquiescence, the conduct of the petitioners and the delay in approaching this Court of 8 to 9 months, this Court would be justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction even assuming that there was a case made out against the department. This Court as well as other High Courts have made it a general rule that the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be given to a litigant who approaches the Court with clean hands in time. The Courts are bound to have due regard to the conduct of the litigant before relief is granted under Article 226 of the Constitution as none has a right to the relief under 226 of Constitution as a matter of course. The relief is granted only after the Court is satisfied that the litigant who moves the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction deserves the same.
6. We are, on the contrary, satisfied that having regard to the conduct of the petitioners throughout, from the time of seizure till this day have not made any attempt to have the petitions disposed of expeditiously. It is more appropriate for the 1st respondent to proceed with the adjudication proceedings initiated under Section 124 of the Act, complete the same and leave it to the petitioners to seek relief if need be under the provisions of the Act itself.
7. Therefore, despite the question referred to us by the learned Single Judge which we have already pointed out really does not fall for consideration, we dismiss these petitions.
8. We may, however, notice that in W.P. No. 7891/1985 the petitioner claims to be the owner of the long cloth found in the 14 cartons, that is a question of fact with which we are not concerned. That is a matter to be decided by the Collector of Customs who is seized of the matter.