DESAI BROTHERS LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioner is against non- consideration of its representations dtd. 13/8/2018 & 4/1/2020 made to the first respondent, wherein permission for conversion of subject Shipping Bills under the Statutory Advance Authorization Scheme. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in PUSHPA INTERNATIONAL, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR v. COMMISISONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW HARBOUR ESTATE AND OTHERS , (2019) 365 ELT 669.

(2.) The first respondent who happens to be the answering party has chosen to remain unrepresented despite service of notice and that would not come in the way of the right cause of citizens being adjudged by the Court in accordance with law. The second respondent represented by the learned Sr.Panel Counsel says that it is not the answering respondent. Be that as it may.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that whenever a citizen makes a representation of the kind, Article 350 of the Constitution of India mandates it's consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law and in a time bound manner. This having not happened, petitioner is more than justified in knocking at the doors of Writ Court.