ZUNJARRAO B NAGARKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition Nos. 1006 to 1008 of 2001 not on Board. Mentioned urgently by Mr. Nankani and taken up after notice to the Respondents. By consent, the said Writ Petitions called out and heard along with Writ Petition No. 914 of 2001.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2001, serious allegations of bias, prejudice and playing into the hands of vested interests in the Custom Department have been levelled against the Respondent No. 2. The over anxiety displayed by the Respondent No. 2 to transfer the Appeals to be heard at Delhi, lends a modicum of credence to the allegations. In the first place, the transfer of the Appeal to Delhi was made straightaway at the request of the Department without even ascertaining the convenience of the Petitioner : on the second occasion, despite our Order dated 24th January 2001, the Respondent No. 2 reiterated the order and retained the matters at Delhi. Finally, when the learned Additional Solicitor General advised the Respondent No. 2 to withdraw the order as he felt that it was unsustainable, the Respondent No. 2 withdrew the order and gave a hearing to the Petitioners. Two serious objections were raised.

(3.) Under normal circumstances, we would be very reluctant to interfere with an administrative order passed by a quasi/quasi-judicial Tribunal reallocating judicial business. However, there are serious allegations made in Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2001 against the Respondent No. 2 (President of the CEGAT) himself.