JAGANNATH KASHINATH KAVALEKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 6th May, 1954 Ramlal Amritalal Parekh and Amritlal Lalbhai Parekh were intercepted by the Customs Officers near the Marine Lines Station, Bombay. and their search resulted in recovery of 90 bars of gold weighing 10 tolas each. On further enquiry the Customs Officers found that one Pal Dhungat was the agent in Bombay of the petitioner, a resident of Goa, for receiving and disposing of gold sent to him. As result of the enquiries proceedings were initiated. against various persons, including the petitioner, and show cause notices issued to them. By order dated 9th April. 1957, the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, directed confiscation of 1400 tolas of gold. which had been disowned by all the persons concerned under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 A personal penalty of Rs. 1,89,000.00 was also imposed on the petitioner under the aforesaid provision. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue, which was dismissed on 15th August, 1958. The Central Board of Revenue passed a non-speaking order which reads "

(2.) Although the point that the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government ought to have given reasons while disposing of the appeal and the revision respectively was not dearly taken in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner having failed in his attempt to cover the said point by one or other of the grounds mentioned in. the petition, sought permission to raise the point. Since the point arises on the face of the orders and no further materials are required for disposing of this contention, I permitteed the learned counsel to argue it. Since I am in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel that the orders of the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government deserve to be quashed because of the absence of reasons, it is not necessary to pronounce on the other points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner as he agrees that all those points will be available to him in appeal before the Central Board of Revenue when the same is taken up for hearing again, The question, therefore, arises whether the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government were required to pass speaking orders giving reasons for the rejection of the appeal and the revision. In B. K. D. Aktiesels kab v. Secretary of State, AIR 1940 Bom 29; the Bombay High Court expressed the view, that an order could not he set aside merly. because it gave no reasons. The matter has been considered several times by their Lord ships of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. The latest decision of the Supreme Court is Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, Civil. Appeals Nos. 2596 and 2597 of 1966, D/29-3-1967 (SC). In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with a revision before the Central Government under the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957. In revision the Central Government affirned the order of the State Government by a brief order.

(3.) For the proper appreciation of the decision it is necessary to read the order in that case