(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is a dispute between the State of U. P. and Union of India. Such matters are cognizable only by the Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest judgment given in the case of Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Collector and others, 2003 (2) JCLR 239 (SC) : JT 2003 Volume 5 SC 210, has held as follows: "under the scheme of the Constitution, Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to a dispute between two states of the Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or the C. P. C. that two departments of a State or the Union of India will fight a litigation in a Court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State or the Union of India to fight litigation in a Court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various departments of the Government are its limbs and, therefore, they must act in coordination and not in confrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not only against the propriety and polity as it smacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to the basic concept of law which requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a natural or a juristic person. The States/union of India must evolve a mechanism to set at rest all inter-departmental controversies at the level of the Government and such matters should not be carried to a Court of law for resolution of the controversy. In the case of disputes between public sector undertakings and Union of India, this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 432, called upon the cabinet secretary to handle such matters. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission & Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 541, this Court directed the Central Government to set up a committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of the Government of India, Ministry of public sector undertakings of the Government of India and Public Sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the committee and its clearance for litigation. The Government may include a representative of the ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the committee. Senior officers only should be nominated so that the committee would function with status, control and discipline. The facts of this appeal, noticed above, make out a strong case that there is a felt need of setting up of similar committees by the State Governments also to resolve the controversy arising between various departments of the State or the State and any of its undertakings. It would be appropriate for the State Governments to set up a committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State, the secretaries of the concerned departments, the Secretary of Law and where financial commitments are involved, the secretary of finance. The decision taken by such a committee shall be binding on all the departments concerned and shall be the stand of the Government. "
(2.) IN view of above, the impugned order dated 10-6-2002 passed by Commissioner (appeals) Customs and Central Excise Patna is quashed. The appeal filed by State of U. P. under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act shall be heard and decided on merits without insisting the State of U. P. to make any deposit as a condition for the entertainment of the appeal.