AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
C.W.P. No. 1745/2002 has been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of suppression by petitioner by wrongly stating that no similar petition was filed or had been dismissed. The writ petition before the High Court challenges the validity of Section 3A introduced in Central Excise Act, 1944. It is not in dispute that other petitions challenging the validity of the very same provision are pending before the High Court. In this matter, we are not going into the question of the effect of not challenging the validity thereof in Civil Appeal Nos. 52-54, 56-58, 60-61 and 63 of 1998 - Union of India and Others Vs. Supreme Steels and General Mills and Others, decided on 15th October, 2001. From the record it appears that the suppression on the basis whereof the writ petition was dismissed was only technical in the sense that wrong statement attributed to the petitioner was in fact originally made but realising the mistake, it seems, a supplementary affidavit was prepared the very next day after filing of the writ petition and a day later that affidavit was filed placing on record of the High Court the fact of writ petition having been filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. That petition was dismissed on counsel stating that manufacturers do not challenge the validity of Section 3A. We are not going into question of the effect of such a statement on behalf of the petitioners, on the writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit CWP Nos. 1729, 1740, 1744-1745/2002 for decision thereof. These writ petitions would be heard by the High Court along with the other petitions pending in the High Court challenging validity of Section 3A introduced in Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeals are allowed accordingly.