BHARAT BARREL AND DRUM MFG CO PVT LTD Vs. R B SAID RECOVERY OFFICER GOVERNMENT DUES IN THE OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by Bharat Barrel Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated August 25, 1982 passed by Mrs. Justice Manohar declining to grant interim relief to the appellants during pendency of Write Petition No. 1643 of 1982. The appellants instituted petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw notice dated August 3, 1982 and the certificate issued by respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the claim of the appellants.

(2.) In the year 1955 the appellants purchased a dyeing and bleaching mills in auction and the same was let out to respondent No. 6, M/s. Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., which is a sister concern of appellant No. 1. Respondent No. 6 carried on business of processing of the unit in the name "Jalan Dyeing and Bleaching Mills". Respondent No. 6 was carrying on business from the year 1955 till the year 1970 and in respect of the business a large liability to pay excise duty accrued. Respondent No. 6 failed to pay the duty amounting to approximately Rs. 67 lakhs, and there upon the proceedings were taken by the excise authorities against respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 have adopted various proceedings in various courts to challenge the liability. In the year 1971, respondent No. 6 surrendered the lease in favour of the appellants and thereafter the appellants were desirous of continuing the business of running the processing house. The excise authorities were not inclined to grant permission and thereupon the appellants gave undertaking to pay the liability due from respondent No. 6 and that is to the tune of about Rs. 67 lakhs. The Excise authorities took steps to enforce the liability against the appellants, but the appellants raised several contentions. Ultimately the respondent No. 3 issued certificate under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and thereupon notice was served on the appellants as to why the amount should not be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The appellants thereupon filed write petition before the learned Single Judge challenging issuance of notice and the certificate. The learned Single Judge admitted the petition but decline to grant interm relief, and that order is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Miss Godbole, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that while admitting this appeal the Division Bench has granted interm relief and that relief has remained in operation for last five years and therefore the same should be continued till the disposal of the petition. The learned counsel also contended that respondent No. 6 has filed Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1979 before the Supreme Court against Union of India and where question of liability and the quantum of duty are in dispute. It was stated that the appeal came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Venkataramiah and Mr. Justice Dutt on November 5, 1986, and the matter was adjourned to December 9, 1986 to explore the possibility of settlement of claim. Though matter was adjourned till December 9, 1986, according to the learned counsel, it has not come up again before the Supreme Court. It was urged that unless the possibility of settlement is ruled out or unless the liability of the appellants, is crystalised, it is not permissible to realise the amount from the appellants, and therefore, interim relief as prayed. Should be granted. We are not impressed with either of the submissions. Mere fact that the appeal has remained pending for five years is no ground to suggest that the interim relief should be continued till the disposal of the petition. We inquired from the learned counsel as to why the appellants did not take any steps to get the petition pending before the Single Judge decided for the last five years and the learned counsel had no answer. Shri Lokur is right in contending that the appellants are merely interested in postponing the day of judgment and are not at all keen to get the petition heard, possibly because there is no merit in the petition. We are also not impressed by the submission that the interim relief should be granted till the disposal of the appeal preferred by respondent No. 6 in the Supreme Court and which is adjourned for exploring the possibility of settlement with the Government. The appeal was adjourned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court till December 9, 1986 and the learned counsel for the appellants is unable to explain as to what has transpired in the Supreme Court thereafter. In any event, the mere fact that respondent No. 6 is disputing the liability is no ground for the appellants to refuse to carry out the obligations created by giving an undertaking in favour of the Government.