PATIT PABAN SEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the matter of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. And in the matter of a Rule issued upon reading a petition of Patit Paban Sen and the affidavit of verification thereof, dated 21-12-1966 and the exhibits or annexures to the said petition and upon hearing Mr. Harashit Chakravarty, Advocate for the petitioner, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the said opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the orders, mentioned in prayer (a) of the petition, particularly the order dated 27-l-1965 as referred to in the petition or why a writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued cancelling, setting aside or quashing the impugned orders referred to in the petition and they are further commanded at the hearing of the application to produce in Court or cause to be forwarded to the Registrar of this Court for being so produced all relevant records in connection with this case so that conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the same or making such other directions as to the Court seem fit and proper.

(2.) And in the matter of an interim order of injunction restraining the opposite parties from giving effect to the orders in appeal passed on the 14th March, 1965 and in Revision case dated 29th October, 1966 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and by the Union of India respectively, for a period of three months from this date with liberty to the petitioner to apply for extension of the same in presence of the other side.

(3.) The petitioner, it is alleged, is a shopkeeper by occupation. By a memo dated 1st June, 1964 issued by the Customs Divisional Preventive Unit, West Bengal, the petitioner was asked to show cause before the Collector of Customs, West Bengal, why penalty should not be imposed and seized goods confiscated for the alleged importation of the goods specified in the said memo without a valid import licence and in contravention of section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 . The petitioner showed cause and the personal hearing was given and the petitioner by an order dated 27th January, 1965 was asked to pay penalty of Rs. 2000/- under section 112 of the Customs Act of 1962. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 128 of the Customs Act of 1962. The respondents however wrote out to the petitioner to say that as the penalty imposed under section 112 has not been deposited the petitioner's appeal is not in compliance with the provisions of section 129 of the Act and the petitioner was asked to deposit the same within a fortnight from date. The petitioner however thereafter made an application before the Central Board of Excise and Customs for dispensing with the deposit due to hardship. It appears however that by an order dated 14th of March, 1966 the petitioner's appeal was rejected for non- compliance with the provisions of section 129 of the Act, 1962. Against the said order the petitioner preferred a revisional application under section 131 of the Customs Act to the Central Government. The Central Government however rejected the said application by passing the following order: "The Government of India have carefully considered the points made by the applicant, but see no justification for interfering with the Order in Appeal. The revision application in accordingly rejected." The petitioner thereupon moved this Court challenging the order dated 27th January, 1965 as also the order dated 14th March, 1966 and the order dated 17th of November, 1966.