Kerala High Court
M/S. Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd vs Union Of India on 12 August, 2016
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 32670 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
M/S. KERALA COMMUNICATORS CABLE LTD.,
CC 28/491, GIRI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MR. DON PARAKKAL.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 009.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (CI CELL),
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE,
MUMBAI ZONAL UNIT, 3RD & 4TH FLOOR,
13, SIR VITHALDAS THACKERSEY MARG, MARINE LINES,
MUMBAI-400 020.
BY ADV. SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON 11-11-2016 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 32670 of 2016 (G)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 ATRUE COPY OF BILL OF ENTRY NO. 6343042 DATED 12-08-2016 AND
THE CORRESPONDING COMMERCIAL INVOICE AND PACKING LIST.
EXHIBIT P2 ATRUE COPY OF BILL OF ENTRY NO. 6500087 DATED 26-08-2016 AND
THE CORRESPONDING COMMERCIAL INVOICE AND PACKING LIST.
EXHIBIT P3 ATRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
26-07-2016 IN WPC NO. 23106/2016.
EXHIBIT P4 ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-08-2016 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.26676/2016.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY RESTRAINT ORDER DATED 20/10/2016 RELATING TO
EXT.P1 BILL OF ENTRY
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESTRAINT ORDER DATED 20/10/2016
RELATING TO EXT.P2 BILL OF ENTRY
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE EMAIL DATED 23/6/2016 FROM
PETITIONER'S OFFICIALS TO 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO EXHIBIT R1, SHOWING THE DETAILS INCLUDING
INVOICES/BILLS AND PAYMENTS FROM PETITIONER TO NAGRAVISION
FOR DLK LICENSES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 20/8/2014 TO 3/6/2016.
EXHIBIT R3 ATTACHMENT 2 TO EXHIBIT R1, SHOWING THE DETAILS INCLUDING
INVOICES/BILLS AND PAYMENTS FROM PETITIONER TO CONAX FOR
DLK LICENSES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 11/9/2014 TO 8/3/2016.
EXHIBIT R4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PRINT OUT OF THE ONLINE NOTICE/REQUEST
DATED 26/08/2016 REQUESTING INFORMATION SENT BY CUSTOMS
OFFICIALS TO THE PETITIONER.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to provisionally release the consignments imported by the petitioner, which are declared vide Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entry, as provided under Sec.18 of the Customs Act, 1962, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
2. Petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the activity of providing Cable TV Operators service. It is registered under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 under the category "Cable TV Operators Service", and is regularly filing returns under the provisions of the said Act and is duly remitting the tax due thereon.
3. Petitioner for its use in providing Cable TV operators services, imported two consignments of Set Top Boxes from China through Cochin Port. The said consignments were declared before the said proper authority under the Customs Act, 1962 and Bills of entries were filed, evident from Exts.P1 W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 2 and P2. Accordingly, an investigation is being conducted by the 4th respondent as regards the valuation that is to be adopted for the purpose of payment of duty of customs under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The investigation undertaken by the office of the 4th respondent is with regard to the issue as to whether the software that is used by Cable TV Operators to restrict the access to its customers to paid channels need to be included for the purpose of valuation under the Customs Act.
4. Petitioner submits that the Digital Cable Receiver/Set Top Boxes function without the software and the software is used by the Cable TV Operators in order to restrict the usage of paid channels by a subscriber who has not opted for subscription as regards those paid channels. In other words, the software, which according to the 4th respondent, could be included for the valuation under the Customs Act, 1962 is not a necessary software for the functioning of the Digital Cable Receiver/Set Top Boxes and is only a tool that is used by Cable TV Operators; post importation of the Set Top Boxes solely to restrict the access to paid channels. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the software used by the Cable TV W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 3 Operators cannot form part of the valuation for more than one reason. Firstly, the said software is not an inevitable part for the functioning of the Set Top Boxes, and secondly, the same is a post importation event, which cannot from part of the valuation under Sec.14 of the Customs Act. It is also stated, the value of software could not be included for the purpose of valuation under the Act since the license for use of the software is obtained from a totally different vendor located in another country and it is not the manufacturer/supplier of the Set Top Boxes, who is providing the software.
5. According to the petitioner, under similar circumstances, a consignment was refused to be cleared for own consumption and the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23106 of 2016, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 26.07.2016, directing release of the goods provisionally under Sec.18 of the Customs Act. As the 4th respondent could not practically find out any valid reason for inclusion of value of software for the purpose of assessment of the digital cable receivers/Set Top Boxes imported by the petitioner, it summoned the Director of the petitioner company and took statements from him under the W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 4 threat of arrest to create evidence against the petitioner, which is against the consistent stand of the petitioner that the software could not be included for the purpose of valuation under the Customs Act. The petitioner was not provided with a copy of the statement taken from its Director, despite request for the same.
6. Against the said course adopted by the 4th respondent, petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.26676 of 2016, in which an interim order was passed, directing the respondents not to arrest the Directors or other responsible persons of the petitioner and not to compel the company or its Directors or other responsible personnel to give evidence against themselves, evident from Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, subsequent consignments imported by the petitioner is arbitrarily confiscated to get over Ext.P3 judgment and Ext.P4 order of this Court. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the judgment pertaining to Ext.P4 interim order, by which a direction was issued not to arrest or detain the Directors or officers who appear before the authority under the Act, otherwise than in accordance with law.
W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 5
7. That apart it is contended, when the respondents are free to investigate and adjudicate as provided under the Act as regards the dispute with regard to the inclusion of the software for the purpose of valuation of Set Top Boxes imported by the petitioner, they cannot arbitrarily refuse clearance of the consignments on provisional basis pending enquiry and final assessment. Even though petitioner approached the 2nd and 3rd respondents, for release of goods covered by Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entries, it is not being released even on provisional basis as provided under Sec.18 of the Customs Act, and thus incurred heavy charges of demurrage. Further, as per the directions issued by the Ministry of Information and Broad-casting, Government of India, petitioner is to switch over completely to digital system of broadcasting on or before 31.12.2016. It is submitted, it would require at least three months time for completing the digitalization and the delay in releasing the consignments is harmful to the completion of the process within the stipulated period. Therefore, the continued detention of the consignments is highly arbitrary and is causing huge financial loss to the petitioner. It is in this background, this writ W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 6 petition is filed.
8. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Superintendent attached to the office of the 2nd respondent has passed Exts.P5 and P6 restraint orders under Sec.110 of the Customs Act, so as to defeat any orders of provisional release being passed by this Court, in relation to Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entries, is the contention. It is also submitted, Exts.P5 and P6 orders were served on its clearing agent on 21.10.2016. Thereupon the writ petition is amended incorporating the reliefs against Exts.P5 and P6. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that the entire actions of the respondents are illegal and they are bound to release the goods in terms of Sec.18 of the Customs Act.
9. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit disputing the claims and demands made by the petitioner to release the goods, as per the provisions of Sec.18 of the Customs Act. According to the said respondents, petitioner among few others have been regularly importing Digital Cable Receivers and Set Top Boxes with software embedded (CAS) under separate license from two different vendors namely "Nagravision" and "Conax". Although petitioner was requested W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 7 on 26.08.2016 to furnish information as to whether any amount has been paid by the petitioner for the embedded software, despite lapse of substantial time, petitioner has not co-operated or given any answer. The intentional attitude of the petitioner is, not to cooperate with the investigation into the questions involved. The same is evident from Ext.P4 order in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, wherein though interim orders were granted to the petitioner at the time of admission, petitioner causes delay in the investigation process. The writ petition was finally dismissed upholding the right of the respondents to proceed with the investigation into such practice of the petitioner.
10. That apart, it is contended, petitioner has entered into separate agreements with CAS providers to pay license fee for the same and therefore the said embedded card less Set Top Boxes imported by it from other vendors which stands undisputed and confirmed in his statement recorded under Sec.108 of the Customs Act, when called and recorded in respect of earlier imported consignments, and embedded software for the imported consignments like the ones covered by Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entries carry a royalty/license fee, W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 8 which are required to be declared under Sec.14 of the Customs Act, and Rule 11 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, when submitting declaration in the prescribed form. It is contended, petitioner has wilfully suppressed the CAS component and its value showing only as 'HD Cable Set Top Boxes'. That apart, it is contended, such practice was being dishonestly and intentionally followed to avoid payment of duty on the concealed value required to be otherwise declared under Sec.14 above. When such practice of the similar importers was discovered in other parts of India, respondents were closely monitoring the transactions of the similar importers. Petitioner was also found to be following the very same illegal practice. The magnitude of the implication of such illegal imports was noted to be very high and therefore monitoring, and actions were seriously pursued.
11. After identifying the petitioner as such an importer, notice calling for details/information relating to their import of CAS embedded card less Set Top Boxes was issued. The officers designated as responsible or holding charge of the CAS embedded card less Set Top Boxes imports were also W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 9 summoned by the 4th respondent during investigation. According to the respondents, petitioner thereafter started filing writ petitions before this Court for orders to cause delay and avoid such investigation on the basis of interim orders like Ext.P4 and considerable time was lost in the statutory period for investigation and the writ petition was recently dismissed, holding that the respondents could proceed with the investigation as per law. Thereafter, petitioner had also sent information from their office at Cochin to the 4th respondent's office at Mumbai, by E-mail and attachments seeking admitted details of imports not declaring such value to be mandatorily disclosed and declared as per the provisions stated above. The total value of licensee fee and the duty payable but not paid in respect of the past imports of CAS embedded card less Set Top Boxes between the period 20th August, 2014 to 8th March, 2016. It is also stated, petitioner has submitted a voluntary statement by Email and attachment of, such concealment value of Rs.14,14,15,345.50/- and evasion of duty to the extent of Rs.41,34,091.87/- respectively during the period.
W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 10
12. Despite being well aware of the illegality and consequences of such imports without declaring the value as mandated under Sec.14 of the Customs Act and Rule 11 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, petitioner's continued illegal practice vide 3 Bills of Entries covered by W.P.(C) No.27920 of 2016 before this Court and two exhibits P1 and P2 bills of entries covered in this writ petition, intentionally suppressing the contents therein and in wilful violation of Sec.14 of the Customs Act and Rule 11 of Rules, 2007. It is also submitted, petitioner has not been co-operating in the investigation and defeating the valuation of the goods imported and other further investigation into the subject imports and with an intention to evade duty. In respect of Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entries also, though petitioner was requested as per Ext.P4 notice for providing information, as to whether petitioner paid any license fees or other amounts for the CAS in respect of Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entries, in spite of lapse of considerable time, petitioner has not provided the same. It is further stated, the valuation and assessment required to be done under Sec.17 of the Customs Act and further adjudication are all delayed solely due to the W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 11 non-cooperation of the petitioner.
13. The similar goods earlier provisionally released by the respondents officials and further approved by this Court under interim order dated 22.09.2016 pertaining to W.P.(C) No.27920 of 2016 are still not cleared by the petitioner and the same would show the lack of bonafides in the urgency now pleaded.
14. It is also stated that the writ petition is not maintainable in law or on fact and the petitioner is not entitled to claim provisional assessment under Sec.18 of the Customs Act, as of right, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in 'Mohammed Fariz and Company v. Firdouz International Trading Co. Keeveeyem Company' [(2012) 275 ELT 30]. Apart from the same, other contentions are raised to justify the action on the part of the respondents in not releasing the goods to the petitioners.
15. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P. Gopinath Menon, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.
W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 12
16. The question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to get provisional release of the imported goods as per Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entries in accordance with the provisions of Sec.18 of Customs Act, 1962. On a reference to Sec.18 of the Customs Act, it deals with provisional assessment of duty and it is clear, where the importer or exporter is unable to make self-assessment under sub-section (1) of Sec.17, and makes a request in writing to the proper officer for assessment or where the proper officer deems it necessary to subject any imported goods or export goods to any chemical or other test etc., the proper officer may direct that the duty leviable on such goods be assessed provisionally, if the importer or exporter, as the case may be, furnishes such security as the proper officer deems fit for the payment of the deficiency, if any, between the duty as may be finally assessed or re-assessed, as the case may be, and the duty provisionally assessed. Sub-section (2) of Sec.18 provides that, in the case of goods cleared for home consumption or exportation, the amount paid shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed or re-assessed, as the case may be, and if the amount so paid falls short of, or is in excess W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 13 of, the duty finally assessed or re-assessed, as the case may be, the importer or the exporter of the goods shall pay the deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be.
17. Sub-section (3) further provides, the importer or exporter shall be liable to pay interest, on any amount payable to the Central Government, consequent to the final assessment order (or re-assessment order) under sub-section (2) at the rate fixed by the Central Government under Sec.28AB from the first day of the month in which the duty is provisionally assessed till the date of payment thereof.
18. Therefore, on a reading of the relevant provisions of Sec.18 of the Customs Act, 1962, what is discernible is, when goods are imported, the proper officer is vested with powers to impose provisional duty on the goods. As per Sec.17, the importer is vested with powers for assessment of duty. However, in this case, petitioner has adopted Sec.18 and therefore in accordance with the provisions of Sec.18, a provisional assessment is to be made by the proper officer. However, the provisional assessment was not made and the goods were not released and it is thereupon that petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking the reliefs. But, during the W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 14 pendency of the writ petition, Exts.P5 and P6 orders were issued under Sec.110 of the Customs Act, whereby the petitioner was prohibited from removing the consignments or otherwise deal with the aforementioned goods without prior permission in writing. It is thus, petitioner has amended the writ petition challenging the said proceedings also. In order to appreciate the entire fact situation, a reference to Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 would be worthwhile.
19. Sec.110 of the Customs Act deals with seizure of goods, documents and things, if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act. Sec.111 of the Act deals with confiscation of improperly imported goods, and clause (f) of the said provision deals with any dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an import manifest or import report which are not so mentioned. Clause (i) deals with any dutiable or prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any package either before or after the unloading thereof.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that confiscation of goods arises on the basis of Sec.110. Sec.110 deals with seizure of goods which are liable to confiscation. W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 15 However, the said circumstance is not occurring in the present fact situation, is the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also submitted, as per Sec.18, goods brought and declared, and place for assessment is a subject matter of assessment that is to take place under Sec.18 itself. It is the contention of the petitioner, respondents cannot proceed under Sec.110 and insist for release of goods, as per the provisions of Sec.110A.
21. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that a software is embedded in the Set Top Boxes, which is not declared by the petitioner. Therefore, the said software is having a value and during the investigation process, it has come out that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with a Company in Japan for the said embedding process, which was later added to the Set Top Boxes imported from China. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the whole procedure is to be valued and ought to have been declared by the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entries. It is in this background, taking that the goods are liable to be confiscated, seizure is effected under Sec.110 and therefore the goods can be released only under Sec.110A W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 16 of the Customs Act, 1962.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, has invited my attention to Regulation 2 of Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011, which deals with the conditions for allowing provisional assessment. Clause (b) therein reads as follows:
"the proper officer on account of any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act, is not able to verify the self-assessment or make re-assessment of the duty on the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be, he shall make an estimate of the duty to be levied [hereinafter referred to as the provisional duty]."
Sub regulation (2) of Regulation 2 states that if the importer or exporter, as the case may be, executes a bond in an amount equal to the difference between the duty that may be finally assessed or re-assessed and the provisional duty, and deposits with the proper officer such sum not exceeding twenty per cent of the provisional duty, as the proper officer may direct, the proper officer may assess, the duty on the goods provisionally at an amount equal to the provisional duty.
23. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 17 Clause 2.1 of Detention and Release/Storage of Imported/Exported Goods under the Customs Manual, wherein it is stated that to avoid delays in the release and minimize hardship to the trade if goods remain detained pending investigation into any dispute in relation to assessment etc. the stress is on expeditious assessment/investigations. Further, unless the goods are prohibited or involved in serious fraud, even if there is a dispute in assessment etc. provisional release option be given to the importers.
24. Clause 2.2 deals with unnecessary detention of goods and ensure speedy Customs clearance. Clause (c) therein, deals with the release of the goods by executing a bond for full value of the goods supported by adequate bank guarantee, where the exporter or importer is willing to do so, and the value of the bank guarantee shall not exceed twice the amount of duty. It is also stated thereunder, the provisional clearance should be allowed as a rule and not as an exception. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, pending adjudication by the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962, the goods are to be provisionally released to the petitioner taking note of the provisions of Sec.18 of the W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 18 Customs Act and the Regulation and the Customs Manual referred to above. This is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in 'Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad v. Essar Steel Ltd.' [2015 (319) E.L.T 202 (SC)], wherein a similar question was considered. In the said judgment, it was held that post importation charges are excluded since Customs duty is chargeable on goods by reference to value at a price at which goods are ordinarily sold/offered for sale at time and place of importation in international trade. It is also held therein, the technical services were not pre-condition sale of plant, and payment therefor could not be added to value of plant. The contention of the petitioner in this case is that even though a software is embedded in the Set Top Boxes for a functional operation at a later point of time by downloading a software, will not prevent the Set Top Boxes to function. The Set Top Boxes will function without the aid of the software embedded. But, at the same time, the embedded software cannot be used unless and until the software is downloaded at a later point of W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 19 time. I find force in the said contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred to supra.
26. Moreover, Sec.18 deals with provisional assessment of duty. The valuation is to be made under Sec.14 of the Customs Act, which is a subject matter of adjudication at a later point of time. On a cursory glance of Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act, what I could gather is, the same deals with seizure of goods. Since the petitioner has submitted for adjudication, Exts.P1 and P2 bills of entries, it cannot be termed at this point of time that the goods are liable to be seized and confiscated at a later point of time. Whether the embedded software has a separate value and whether the Set Top Boxes could function without the embedded software is a subject matter of adjudication.
27. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the goods are to be released as per the provisions of Sec.18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even samples of Set Top Boxes can be retained by the respondents as part of the adjudication/investigation process. Therefore, after the adjudication process, if the petitioner is liable to pay additional W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 20 customs duty, provisions are made under the Act to secure the said money with interest as provided under the provisions of Sec.18. Moreover, Sec.28 of the Customs Act deals with recovery of dues not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded.
28. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that, Sec.125 deals with the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, wherein, it is stated that in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is 'prohibited' under the Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods (or where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized), an option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fine as the said officer thinks fit. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that, confiscation is possible under Sec.111 only, when the goods are 'prohibited' in nature. Admittedly, in this case, the goods are not prohibited in nature. Therefore, I find force in the said contention also. W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 21
29. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion, petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition, and therefore there will be a direction to the proper officer to make provisional assessment as provided under Sec.18 of the Customs Act, read with provisions of Regulation, 2011 and Customs Manual, at the earliest, and at any rate within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear, the respondents shall be entitled to retain required samples for the purpose of adjudication/investigation proceedings. It is also made clear, the final adjudication proceedings can go on untrammelled by any observations contained above.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE //true copy// P.S. to Judge St/-
07.11.2016 P.T.O W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016 22 The following sentence is incorporated after the last sentence in paragraph 29 of the judgment dated 11.11.2016 in W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016.
"The authority shall take note of the stipulations contained under the notification dated 22/08/2016 amending the earlier regulations."
As per order dated 29.11.2016 in I.A.No.19629/2016 in W.P.(C) No.32670 of 2016.
Sd/-
Registrar (Judicial)