LUMBINI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A company registered in a foreign country has sought compensation from the Union of India for the loss of materials in transit through India as also withdrawal of a demand notice dated March 26, 2002 issued by the authorities on company.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is a company incorporated in Nepal. The petitioner had imported goods. In accordance with the treaty existing between Nepal and India, the petitioner had transported such imported goods from the port of Kolkata to Nepal. The goods were being transported by road on a lorry. The goods were stolen while in transit. A First Information Report had been lodged by the Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal in respect of such loss. The goods were never recovered. The Indian authorities owe an obligation for safe transport action of the goods from the port of India to Nepal. Since the goods were lost to the petitioner in transit in India for no fault of the petitioner, the customs authorities cannot make any demand upon the petitioner. The demand made by the customs authorities dated March 26, 2002, therefore, has to be quashed. The customs authorities having acted in violation of the treaty and statutory obligation, a writ petition is maintainable by a foreign national for redressal of its grievance in a Court of law in India. In support of the proposition a writ petition is maintainable, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon All India Reporter 1993 Punjab and Haryana Page 162 (Saeid Reza Moein v. Punjabi University, Patiala and Anr.) and All India Reporter 1954 Madras Page 806 (R.M. Seshadri v. Second Addl. Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle, Madras and Anr.) .

(3.) Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that, a foreign national cannot maintain a writ petition for redressal of all its grievances. A writ petition at the behest of a foreign national is maintainable on limited grounds. In support of such proposition he has relied upon of All India Reporter 2003 Allahabad Page 153 (Power Measurement Limited, Petitioner v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Ors.) . He has submitted that, the petitioner in the present facts of the case is essentially canvassing a right under Article 19(1)(g) and not under Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to maintain the writ petition.