UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, respondent herein, filed an appeal before the CEGAT to challenge the order of the Customs authorities leavelling duty of Rs. 16,44,436.00 and penalty of Rs. l,50,000.00 . Before the CEGAT an application for dispensing with the pre- deposit was made and the CEGAT vide order dated 9th September, 1990 directed the petitioner to deposit the full amount of duty and dispensed with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 10th October, 1990, but could not get an interim order from the Court. THEreafter, on 15th November, 1990 the petitioner filed writ petition No.3612 of 1990 in this Court impugning the same order of the CEGAT dated 9th September, 1990. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner made the following averments:

(2.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order of stay confirmed by the learned Single Judge does not deserve to be sustained. We are taking serious note of the matter that this Court was misled in giving interim stay order, in view of the averments in para 15 of the writ petition that no similar writ petition was filed elsewhere. Counsel for the writ petitioner, who is now respondent before us, concedes that "yes", writ petition was a filed in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court and instructions were issued to the Advocate at Nagpur to withdraw the writ petition from that Court. Even it is presumed that writ petition was withdrawn from Nagpur Bench before filing of the writ petition in this Court, does not justify the petitioner to raise the averments in para 15 of the writ petition, which has been reproduced above. The withdrawal of the writ petition is not material for the decision, but what is material is mis-statement of fact that no similar writ petition has been filed in any other High Court or Supreme Court of India, for seeking similar relief. Since we are of the view that the writ petitioner tried to mislead this Court in order to obtain an interim order from this Court, which he could not get from Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, we are of the view that the writ petitioner was not entitled to interim order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1st August. 1991 is set aside and the prayer of stay in the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the interim order passed in the writ petition is vacated.