1. The petitioner, Mr. Mohit Saxena, resident of Delhi, holds an Indian passport bearing No. B9416239 which is valid up to 17th January 2034.

2. It is his case that while travelling from Bangkok to India/Delhi on 27th February 2024, he was wearing ancestral gold in the form of a gold Kada weighing 65 grams and one metal ring of 35 grams.

3. As the petitioner passed green channel without declaring the said gold articles, a detention receipt came to be issued to him dated 27 th February 2024 bearing no. DR No.DR/INDEL4/27-02-2024/003888.

4. The prayer in the petition is that the respondent authorities be directed to unconditionally release the aforesaid detained gold and the Court may pass an appropriate order in the matter.

5. The petition is duly affirmed by the petitioner and he is identified by Advocate Pradeep Chaurasia.

6. The entire petition bears the signatures of Advocate Pradeep Chaurasia as and where such certification is required under the Delhi High Court Rules.

7. This is how we have taken up the present petition for hearing.

8. Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. P.S. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are sharing a chamber with Mr. Pradeep Chaurasia and it is their statement that Mr. Pradeep Chaurasia has instructed and authorized them to argue the matter, and thus they have an authority to address this Court.

9. We had heard the petition for some time when the learned counsel for respondent has come out with a strong objection alleging that for the very same cause the petitioner has preferred this petition, another petition had already been filed by the petitioner. To this effect, our attention is invited to the order dated 29th May 2025 delivered in Writ Petition (Civil) 6232/2025, titled "Mohit Saxena v. Commissioner of Customs".

10. According to him, said petition which was preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in relation to the very same gold articles which were detained vide aforesaid receipt dated 27th February 2024. According to him, the petition was preferred on the ground that no Show Cause Notice was served and the petition came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 29th May 2025. He would invite our attention to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in para 12 to 19 which reads thus:

          "12. Thus, it is now settled that the used jewellery worn by the passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects in terms of the Rules, which would be exempt from detention by the Customs Department.

          13. In view of the above and considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the detained jewellery are the personal effects of the Petitioner.

          14. The detained jewellery being personal effects of the Petitioner, the detention of the same would be contrary to law. Accordingly, the detained jewellery would be liable to be released on this ground itself. However, there is another issue that is required to be considered in the present matter i.e., non-issuance of the Show Cause Notice within the prescribed period under the Act.

          15. Once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a Show Cause Notice and afford a personal hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of Act, is a period of six months. However, subject to complying with the requirements therein, a further extension for a period of six months can be taken by the Customs Department for issuing the show cause notice. In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, yet no show cause notice has been issued. Accordingly, the detention is impermissible.

          16. Considering the above facts and legal position, continued detention of the detained jewellery would be untenable in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act. Under these circumstances and bearing in mind the weight of the items i.e., 100 grams, the detention is set aside. The gold items shall be released by the Customs Department to the Petitioner subject to payment of full warehousing charges.

          17. Let the Petitioner appear before the Customs Authority on 9th June, 2025.

          18. The Petitioner may collect the detained goods through an Authorised Representative, in which case, the detained goods shall be released after receiving a proper email from the Petitioner or some form of communication that the Petitioner has no objection to the same being released to the concerned Authorised Representative.

          19. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of."

11. The learned counsel for the respondent further invite our attention to the photocopy of the recent detention receipt, the photocopy of the relevant pages of the passport of the petitioner and Custom Gate Pass dated 20th June 2025. According to him, in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 29th May 2025, the detained gold has already been handed over to the petitioner.

12. According to him, this petition has been preferred by suppressing this material fact.

13. In the aforesaid background we have checked in the body of the petition as regards the statutory declarations that were mandatory to be made by the petitioner.

14. In para 6 and 7 of the petition, the following statements were made by the petitioner:

          "6. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court has subject- matter jurisdiction to entertain this petition and the present petition is maintainable as there is no other efficacious remedy available to the petitioner.

          7. That the Petitioner has not filed any other similar writ petition (Civil) before this Hon'ble Court or any other court or Forum in India except as above submitted in this petition."

15. In the aforesaid background, it is the case of the respondent that not only there is material suppression on the part of the petitioner about filing earlier petition and the petition being successfully decided in his favour by the aforesaid judgment dated 29th May 2025, and in compliance thereof, the gold being already received by the petitioner, but also the petitioner is trying to give an impression to the Court that he is entitled for the release of the gold for the second time. According to him, the very intentions of the petitioner are to practice fraud on the respondent and also this court.

16. The aforesaid documents which are produced and referred to by the respondent are duly made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this background states that if the aforesaid factual matrix narrated by the respondent are true, the petitioner has suppressed the said fact from them when the petition was drafted, filed and argued before this Court, and they would like to take further instructions in the matter.

17. In the aforesaid background, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order.

18. We direct the petitioner, Mr. Mohit Saxena, holding Indian passport bearing no. B9416239 to appear before this Court along with his passport and the gold articles which were released in his favour, as has been claimed by learned counsel for the respondent in compliance with the order dated 29th May 2025.

19. In response to the Court's query, learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. P.S. Sandhu assures that on the next date of hearing, Mr. Pradeep Chaurasia, the counsel who has signed the petition shall also physically remain present as the said counsel has taken instructions from the petitioner.

20. As prayed, list on 30th April 2026.

21. We request the counsel appearing for the petitioner to communicate this order to Advocate Pradeep Chaurasia and also to the petitioner. Similarly, Advocate Pradeep Chaurasia shall make every endeavour to communicate this order to the petitioner.

22. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.