LAWS(GJH)-2004-9-110

SHRINATH PRINTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 14, 2004
Shrinath Prints Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order-in-Original Nos. SRT-I/DIV-II/ADJ-136 & 137/2001/MP-II dated 28-5-2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Division II, Surat-I is sought to be challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after a period of almost 3 years i.e. on 8-4-2004. When this petition was filed there was not even a whisper explaining the said gross delay of 3 years. Realising this fact, amendment application was presented before the Division Bench of this Court on 29-4-2004 by the petitioner and a faint attempt was made to explain the gross delay of almost 3 years. The same was granted by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : M.S. Shah & A.M. Kapadia, JJ.) on 29-4-2004. Mere grant of amendment application would not confer any right on the petitioner that this petition be entertained and decide on merits and the matter be sent back to the authority as ordered by the same Division Bench of this Court on 19-1-2004 in Special Civil Application No. 6779 of 2003 (Annexure-F).

(2.) From the unreported judgment and order dated 19-1-2004 of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in Special Civil Application No. 6779 of 2003, it is clear that Division Bench of this Court has not addressed itself to the question of gross delay and laches and simply relying on the another Division Bench judgment of this Court. That petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the authority.

(3.) As stated earlier, initially, there was not even a whisper in the petition about the gross delay of about 3 years and later on by way of an amendment application an attempt was made to explain such gross delay of almost 3 years in para 4.1 of the petition. Except the flimsy excuses, no good reason is shown by the petitioner for entertaining this petition after a lapse of almost 3 years. Hence, without going into the merit of the case, this petition is straightaway dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.