P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BAKHSH, J.

This order will dispose of the above-mentioned three writ petitions which relate to the same incident. Petitioner Abdus Sattar is alleged to be the owner of a fishing boat by name "Al Muhammadi". This boat was registered with the Principal Officer Mercantile Marine Department. Karachi on 21st February 1952. It is alleged that this boa'- had been given by Abdus Sattar on hire to petitioner Allu by an agreement, dated 1st March 1954. The hire was fixed at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. On 29th July 1954 this boat was pursued and captured by the Customs authorities while she was getting near Bhit Island. On search it was found to contain 44 bales of art silk and cotton piece goods. According to the petitioners these goods were valued at Rs. 82,500 while according to the Customs authorities the value of these goods was Rs. 58,704-10-0. It is an admitted position that the entry of these goods in Pakistan was banned by a Government Notifi cation. The Customs authorities carried on, their investiga tion, they heard Allu petitioner who was in charge of the boat and the Customs Collector passed an order on 25th August 1954 whereby he confiscated the contraband goods and also the boat "Al Muhammadi" under section 168 of the Sea Customs Act. The owner of the boat was, however, given an option under section 183 to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 in lieu of confiscation. Against this order petitioner Allu went in appeal under section 188 of the Sea Customs Act to the Central Board of Revenue and this Board dismissed the appeal. Then on 1st April 1955 a notice under section 80, Civil P. C. was given to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance. No relief was granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, instead of filing a regular suit for which notice had been given, the petitioner Abdus Sattar came and filed the present writ petition in November 1955. Allu filed the writ petition in March 1956. The case of the petitioners is that these goods belonged to the three petitioners of Writ Petition No. 99 of 1956. These goods were taken for those three petitioners at Gwadar by Allu who sailed for Muscat. When Allu went about forty miles from Gwadar to the direction of Muscat a heavy storm began to blow from the opposite direction and made it very hard for Allu to proceed towards Muscat. There was an imminent danger of the sinking of the boat and the machine of the boat also went out of order. Then Allu determined to get back to Gwadar. The weather continued to be very bad and stormy and therefore the boat could not proceed to Gwadar either. The machine having gone out of order, the boat was sailing by means of sails. Allu had no alternative left but to return to Karachi side which he eventually did. At about 8 p. m., while the boat was near the Manora breakwater, the launch of the Customs Depart ment pursued it, fired four shots on it and then captured the boat and took it to Bhit Island. The case of the Customs Department, however, is that all these people are engaged in smuggling goods in this country and that on the day in question the Customs party sighted three such bats but two escaped and they succeeded in rounding up the present one. We have heard the learned advocates at great length and according to me the petitioners have no case whatsoever. It is very amusing to hear that these goods, which were being taken from Gwadar to Muscat, could not be taken there on account of the stormy wind. The boat went forty miles beyond Gwadar and Gwadar is equally distant from Karachi and yet the forces of nature all conspired to bring back the petitioner Allu to his home. It is important to bear in mind that both Abdus Sattar and Allu are residents of Bhit Island. It is clear therefore that these goods were being smuggled from Gwadar into this country by these people and they were surprised by the Curstoms authorities. Whatever the facts may be, there is no doubt that the Customs Collector had full jurisdiction under sections 167 (8) and 168 of the Sea Customs Act to deal with this matter. Since he had the jurisdiction to deal with it he could decide rightly as well as wrongly. This Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot sit as a Court of Appeal and decide upon the correctness or otherwise of r the order of the Customs Collector on merits. The proper remedy was by way of appeal which appeal was actually filed by Allu and was dismissed by the Central Board of Revenue. Thereafter the petitioner Allu actually gave a notice to the Government under section 80, Civil P. C. in April 1955. Instead of filing a suit he came and filed this writ petition seven months after the notice was given. I find, therefore, that the petitioner Allu has absolutely no case. Coming to the question of petitioner Abdus Sattar, he has complained that the boat belonged to him and was let out on hire to Allu. He did not know that his boat was being used illegally for bringing smuggled goods into the country. He also has complained that he was not given any notice before the boat was confiscated. The case of the Customs, on the other hand, is that the ownership of the boat was not disclosed by Allu at all. The Intelligence Officer of the Customs, Mr. Amjad Hussain Khokhar, who had organised this raid, has sworn an -affidavit to the effect that in spite of his demand Allu never showed or presented any documents whatsoever in respect of the boat or the cargo contained therein. I see no reason to disbelieve this statement on oath. Mr. Amjad Hussain could not possibly know that the boat belonged to Abdus Sattar. Apart from that, this agreement of hire (marked B) which has been produced is not a registered document and I seriously doubt its genuineness. Allu and Abdus Sattar both reside at Bhit Island and it appears that Abdus Sattar is responsible for smuggling these goods on his boat which was being plied by Allu. In any case, whatever the facts, may be, the proper course for Abdus Sattar also is to file a suit if he feels aggrieved by this order. It is not open to us in our writ jurisdiction to quash the order of the Customs Collector which was passed by him in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Then comes the case of the three alleged owners of the cargo viz., the cloth in question. Their complaint is that no notice had been issued to them. They reside in Gwadar, outside the boundaries of this country, and therefore there is no substance whatsoever in their grievance that notice was not issued to them. In view of all these reasons, I dismiss all the three writ petitions and direct that the petitioners should bear the costs of the respondents. A. H. Petition dismissed.