Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 547 (GUJ)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA

2018-02-20

A.Y.KOGJE, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. There shall be formal order of Rule in both the petitions. Shri M.S. Rao, learned advocate, who is on caveat, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 – original applicant in both the petitions, who can be said to be the main contesting party. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties to remand the matters, both these petitions are taken up for final hearing today. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application Nos.46/2013 & 70/2012, the disciplinary authority – Central Board of Excise & Customs has preferred Special Civil Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After elaborate submissions were made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the impugned judgment and orders be quashed and set aside and the matters be remanded to the learned tribunal to decide the Original Applications on its own merits. Shri Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 – original applicant has stated at the Bar that let the learned tribunal be permitted to decide and dispose of the Original Applications on its own merits and the respondent no.1 - original applicant shall not take the plea that the disciplinary authority and /or authority who passed the order of penalty had no jurisdiction. 5. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite any further reasoned order as the matters are now being remanded to the learned tribunal, and therefore, any observations by this Court may affect the case of either of the parties. Under the circumstances, we are not passing any further reasoned order and /or not assigning any further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and orders. 6. Under the circumstances, we are not passing any further reasoned order and /or not assigning any further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and orders. 6. In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing behalf of the respective parties recorded hereinabove, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application Nos.46/2013 & 70/2012 are quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the learned tribunal to decide and dispose of the aforesaid Original Applications afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and after giving the fullest opportunity to the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. However, it is clarified and as agreed by Shri Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 – original applicant and his consensus recorded hereinabove, the learned tribunal to decide and dispose of the Original Applications afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits, without raising the issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the authority who initiated the departmental proceedings and who passed the order of penalty. It is hoped that the learned tribunal shall finally decide and dispose of the respective Original Applications, on remand, at the earliest. 7. With this, present petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in both of the petitions. No order as to costs.