Calcutta High Court
Naresh Kumar Juneja & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 April, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 204 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
NARESH KUMAR JUNEJA & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 5th April, 2017.
Mr. R.K. Chowdhury, Adv.
...for the petitioners
Mr. Amitabrata Roy,
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Advs.
...for Customs Authority
The Court : The petitioner assails an order dated
February 14, 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Draw
Back Department.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the
extension letter from the Reserve Bank of India in respect of the subject
export was not made available to the petitioner. He submits that, the
petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Court with regard to
the non-action of the RBI. Such writ petition is pending. The respondent
Authorities is a party to such writ petition. On the date when directions for affidavits were given in such writ petition, it was not informed by the 2 Authority that the impugned order had already been passed. He refers to Section 122A of the Customs Act, 1962 and submits that, the petitioner is entitled to three adjournments of the hearing. In the present case, while the hearing took place on November 29, 2016, the Authorities did not afford the petitioner any adjournment to produce the document. Moreover and in any event, it is not the fault of the petitioner that the relevant extension letter from the RBI could not be produced before the Authority. RBI has refused to grant such extension for which a writ petition is pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court.
Learned advocate for the Authorities submits that, the impugned order is appealable under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that, the hearing took place on November 29, 2016. The proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance for eternity of the petitioner to produce the extension letter from the RBI. In such circumstances, the impugned order has been passed.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The impugned order dated February 14, 2017 is appealable under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has chosen not to prefer an appeal therefrom. The scope of challenge of a 3 quasi-judicial order in a writ petition is limited. The impugned order is, therefore, adjudged on the basis of such parameters.
It cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional issue. The Authority had afforded a personal hearing to the petitioner. The Authority did not act in breach of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. Section 122A of the Customs Act, 1962 will come into operation only if there is an application for grant of adjournment. In the present case, the petitioner was heard on November 29, 2016. He had sought for 30 days time to produce the extension letter from the RBI. The impugned order has not been passed within the period of 30 days from the date of final hearing on November 29, 2016. The petitioner did not apply before the Authority for extension of time to produce the extension letter from the RBI thereafter. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondent Authority, the proceedings could not have been kept pending for eternity.
In such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P. No. 204 of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) TR/ 4