B KISTAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as common questions arise for consideration. This is a tell tale story of unscrupulous litigants abusing the judicial process. They were aided and abetted by vested interests. It is a saga of naked abuse of this Court's Forum and the device of public interest litigation. We cannot help, except to feel distress as to how this Court was taken for a ride. More about it at a later stage. We would, briefly, indicate the facts in both these writ petitions.

(2.) Writ Petition - WPNo.5717 of 1997 is filed by ft former Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Shadnagar Constituency and a resident of Hyderabad. The said writ petition is filed on 18-3-1997. The petitioner in the writ petition, prays for issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in abusing of power vested by law under Sections 12-Eand 13 and other provisions of Chapter III of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracting the provisions of Section 23 of the Central Excise Act, resulting in loss of Central Excise Revenue to a tune of about Rs.490 Crores in Hyderabad Division and in dismantling the Special Investigation Team vide Establisliment Order (GO) No.43/97, dated 10-3-1997 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the fifth respondent to curb his corrupt activities.

(3.) The allegations arc mainly levelled against the fifth respondent, who at the relevant time was working as Commissioner-I, Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad Commissionerate. The petitioner in detail submits about the internal working of the Customs and Central Excise Department. It is specifically alleged that whenever and wherever the fifth respondent was posted in crucial job the same has resulted in poor collection of excise revenue. According to the petitioner, there was a short fall in the revenue collection to the tune of Rs.100.00 crores per annum at Bangalore and Rs.200.00 crores per annum at Hyderabad. It is also alleged that during the period when the fifth respondent was Commissioner of Appeals at Bangalore, he granted reliefs to the litigants to the tune of Rs. 10.00 crores. According to the petitioner, the short fell in collection of revenue is due to the outright clandestine evasion of duty by manufacturers of consumer goods, who are broadly classified under four main categories : (i) Biscuits; (ii) Cigarettes & Gutkha; (iii) Textiles and (iv) Steel. We need not refer in detail to the statistics furnished by the petitioner. In, nut shell, the allegations relate to the short fall in collection of excise revenue. However, it is specifically alleged that due to the favouritism shown to M/s. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., a building at Anantapur, valued at Rs.50 lacs was constructed by M/s. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., for the benefit of the fifth respondent in return of a favourable order giving relief to an extent of Rs.2.7 crores.