Calcutta High Court
M/S.National Steel & Agro Industries ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
WP No. 1114 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/s.National Steel & Agro Industries Ltd. & Anr Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Defendant/Respondent
For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Saptanshu Basu,Advocate. For Defendant/Respondent Nos.1,2,3 : Ms.Mamta Bhargav,Advocate. For respondent nos.4 & 5 : Mr.Sujoy Mondal, Advocate. BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date : 10th July, 2008.
The Court : The petitioner herein had moved a writ petition being W.P.No.702 of 2008 questioning the correctness of test report in respect of imported Toor Whole (Red) New Crop (Pulses). The petitioner had prayed for retesting of the said item by the appropriate laboratory. Submission was made that the items in question could be used for human consumption after reprocessing as the same is capable of being made to conform to the prescribed standards by such re-processing. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there could not be any defect in the test report submitted in relation to the 2 imported goods in question as the supplier of the said goods had confirmed the Test Report as correct. Submission was made that the goods in question could not cross the bench mark twice and the validity of the said report was never questioned by the petitioner. However, it was not disputed by the respondents that the goods in question could be made in conformity with the standards specified or stipulated as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provided the same are reprocessed. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties on 16th May, 2008 the writ petition was disposed of by passing an order. The relevant portion of the said order is as under :
"Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the repsective parties and considering the provisions of Section 18 of the P.F.A.Act, 1954, I am of the view that the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to reprocess the goods in question so that the same may conform to the prescribed standard for human consumption.
For the aforementioned reasons, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to reprocess the aforesaid goods in order to make the same in conformity with the standards prescribed as per P.F.A. Act, 1954.
Needless to mention that after reprocessing of the aforesaid goods the Respondent-Authorities shall arrange for retesting of the same after collecting samples in presence of 3 the parties and will allow for release of the reprocessed Toor Whole(Red) New Crop (Pulses) only after being satisfied with the standards specified as per P.F.A.Act, 1954 on the basis of the subsequent Test Report.
It is also needless to mention that the aforesaid steps for reprocessing and retesting in terms of this order should be completed as early as possible, but preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Since the respondents were not called upon to file affidvits controverting the allegations in the petition, the allegations are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petiton stands disposed of.
There will, however, be no order as to costs."
Submission has been made that the learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner had communicated the order passed on 16th May, 2008, that is the last day before summer vacation, on the same day and it was intimated that this court has been pleased to direct the respondents to draw samples of the goods in question in the presence of the petitioner for retesting the same. Incidentally the copy of the order dated 16th May,2008 was made available on 16th June, 2008. In the meantime, samples were drawn by the Central 4 Food Laboratory, Calcutta and was analysed on 28th May, 2008, completed on 9th June, 2008 and it has been found that the sample conforms to the standards to be Toor Whole as laid down under item no.A.18.06.14 of Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group-I, Custom House, Kolkata had issued a letter dated 18th June, 2008 requesting the petitioner to have the goods reprocessed and then retested as directed by the order passed by this court on 16th May, 2008. It is submitted that on instruction from his learned advocate-on-record the order passed was immediately communicated, there was some communication gap in communicating exact text of the order and in the context of the test report analysed on 28th May, 2008 and completed on 9th June, 2008 by the respondents which reveals that the samples conform to standards, the order passed on 16th May, 2008 may be reviewed. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgement of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 (Shivdeo Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors). It is submitted that as it has been found that the sample conforms to the standards it is prayed that the order passed on 16th May, 2008 be modified since according to him the High Court has power of review to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
In the instant case, I find that the authorities, that is the Central Food Laboratory, have themselves found that the sample 5 conforms to the standards. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 that the customs authorities have no objection for releasing the goods since it conforms to P.F.A.Rules. In view of such submission on behalf of the respondents the order passed on 16th May,2008 in W.P.No.702 of 2008 is varied and or modified to the extent that the respondent nos.1,2 and 3 shall release the goods on the basis of the test report being Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition.
Since the respondents were not called upon to file affidavits controverting the allegations in the petition, the allegations are deemed not to have been admitted by them.
The writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative portion of this order on the usual undertakings.
(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) ssaha RO(ct)