Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1943 (PAT)

Mohan Goswami v. Union of India

2011-09-09

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2011
ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For restraining the respondent-authorities to auction the confiscated items under the provision of Customs Act, contrary to the Government of India circular where the procedure has been laid down for disposal of the confiscated items. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to destroy the Betel Nut which has been seized/confiscated and put on auction vide Tender Notice dated 12.05.2010 at lot No. GE-09/INP/JBN/09-10, lot No. GE-10/ INP/ JBN/09-10, lot No. GE-07/ INP/JBN/09-10 and lot No. 143UC/09 dated 16.09.2009. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to destroy the aforementioned betel nut measuring quantity 45.36 MT in the light of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. (iv) For direction upon the respondent authorities to take necessary disciplinary action against the respondent Commissioner for disobeying the direction issued by the Commissioner and jeopardizing the life of million of consumers of adulterated betel nuts as declared by the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata. (v) Any other ORDER :or ORDER :s as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner claimed to be member of State Committee, Indian National Trade Union Congress and purchaser of betel nuts from Central Government Employees Consumer’s Co-operative Society (Kendriya Bhandar) and National Consumer Co-operative Federation (NCCF) and came to know that respondent Customs Department was taking steps for auction sale of adulterated betel nuts, which were confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962. He also claimed to have sent letter dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure 6) to all the authorities concerned regarding smuggling of betel nuts in collusion with Patna Custom Authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that betel nuts are the largest single consumer item smuggled into India from Nepal regularly by organized gangs of smugglers and the Kanpur Gutka Manufacturers were major financers of smuggling of betel nuts, which was, thus, not only an economic offence of smuggling but was also a health hazard spreading cancer through its products e.g. Gutka & Paan Masala etc. and hence the authorities were duty bound to take steps for checking the same. 4. and hence the authorities were duty bound to take steps for checking the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in these circumstances the Central Government through Chief Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), vide letter dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure 3), directed the Central Board of Excise & Customs not to sell such confiscated items in public auction as they were sensitive commodities prone to smuggling and to offer it to Kendriya Bhandar and NCCF only as they were government organizations and similar directions were earlier also issued by the Government of India to all the concerned Departments vide letter dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure 4), letter dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure 3 series), Circular dated 27.02.1981 (Annexure 3 series) and Circular dated 12.02.1969 (Annexure 3 series). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that the Betel Nuts in question were adulterated with fungal growth and insect damage as would be apparent from the Informal Analysis Report dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure 2) of Raxaul Extension Centre of the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata. For these eventualities the Government of India vide its letter dated 15.06.2001 (Annexure 5) restrained the authorities from auction selling such goods in the country and directed them to re-export it out of the country by following the usual legal process or to destroy it as required under the relevant rules. Hence he claimed that on this ground also the betel nut in question cannot be auction sold. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no Kendriya Bhandar in Patna and hence earlier such betel nuts were provided to NCCF for selling it in retail to Co-operative Societies under the authorities, but subsequently NCCF started selling it to big concerns like the Kanpur Manufacturers, which were preparing hazardous and harmful items like Paan Masala and Gutka etc. However, the petitioner has failed to implead NCCF as a party in this case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that in view of the said facts the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) wrote letter dated 22.01.2010 to the Directorate General of Vigilance (Customs & Central Excise) for guidance regarding disposal of seized/confiscated betel nuts to which the said Directorate replied vide letter dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure-A) that in these circumstances it would be proper to allow the procedure of sale through public auction cum tender as applicable in case of other commercial goods for the sake of transparency. He also stated that in the said situation seized/confiscated betel nuts are sold in all the States through E-Auction as has been done in this State and this fact is apparent from FAX dated 25.01.2010 (Annexure-C) sent by Kolkata Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to his counterpart in Patna. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that only after testing the betel nuts and grading them, they are recommended for disposal for which a detailed prescribed procedure is adopted as shown by the recommendations of 2009 and 2010 (Annexures-B series). He also claimed that in one test at Raxaul the betel nuts in question were found adulterated only on one count, but in the second test at Kolkata they were not found adulterated on any count and only thereafter they were recommended for E-Auction as directed by the Directorate General of Vigilance (Customs & Central Excise) vide letter dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure-A). However, other betel nuts, which were found adulterated were destroyed after taking permission dated 03.02.2009 (Annexure-D) from the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). 9. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that the entire procedure as prescribed has been followed by the authorities, in which anyone could have participated, even the petitioner, but neither he participated nor raised any objection during the proceeding and only after the bidding was complete and the auction purchaser was selected, he has raised this frivolous objection, which is not sustainable as neither there has been any procedural misconduct nor any illegality has been committed by the authorities in this regard. 10. Considering the above noted arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is apparent that the respondents have proceeded as per the rules and the various instructions from the Central Government in view of the relevant circumstances and developments specially the absence of Kendriya Bhandar and the illegal activities of the NCCF. The respondents have also been able to show that in the aforesaid circumstances they were duty bound to sell the betel nuts by E-Auction after getting it tested at Kolkata Laboratory, which reported it to be unadulterated and fit for human consumption. 11. The respondents have also been able to show that in the aforesaid circumstances they were duty bound to sell the betel nuts by E-Auction after getting it tested at Kolkata Laboratory, which reported it to be unadulterated and fit for human consumption. 11. Furthermore even as per the claim of the petitioner, NCCF was the concerned person, which was deprived due to the impugned action of the respondent-authorities, but neither the said NCCF ever raised any grievance or filed any case, nor the petitioner even impleaded NCCF as a party to this writ petition, although according to the case made out by him it was a necessary party. 12. In any view of the matter, the petitioner has been unable to substantiate and validly show from the statements made in the writ petition that his interest had suffered or any right has been taken away or he had been affected in any manner whatsoever by the impugned action of the respondent-authorities. He has also failed to prove by any valid material that he had ever been purchaser of betel nuts from Kendriya Bhandar or NCCF. 13. Thus the petitioner appears to be a busy body poking his nose in every pie in sight for sniffing out some advantage to which he is not legally entitled and hence this writ petition, not being a public interest litigation, cannot be legally entertained. 14. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.