AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.
The respondents contend that reliefs sought in this proceeding has become infructuous since the order, sealing the premises for recovery of Rs. 55,94,275/- has been withdrawn.
The petitioner had approached this Court for quashing of demand for recovery of Rs. 55,94,275/- u/s 19 of the Foreign Trade Development Regulations Act, 1992. The adjudication order was made on 15.10.2007. The petitioner had appealed to the Director General i.e. appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dated 4.3.2008 set aside the adjudication order. The materials on record establish that the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner (South) intimating that the order of the adjudicating authority, which was sought to be enforced through recovery proceedings by issuance of notice dated 25.2.2008 should not be acted upon. The petitioner intimated the Deputy Commissioner on 14.3.2008 about its success in appeal and requested for withdrawal of the recovery notice. In these circumstances, he contends that the sealing order made on 23.8.2008 was without authority of law and entirely unjustified.
Respondent-Union of India contends that the sealing order was made by the Collector who is primarily answerable in these proceedings. It is contended that the Central Government was left with very little time-only ten days to implement the orders and intimate the Government of NCTD for withdrawing the recovery certificate and the show cause notice issued by the latter on 22.2.2008. The Government of NCT of Delhi''s stand (which has produced the records) is that although it received a letter from the petitioner intimating about the setting aside of the adjudication order, a copy of the appellate authority''s order was not a certified one. In the circumstances, the petitioner, it is claimed, was asked to furnish a certified copy. It was also contended besides that in the absence of authentic information from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, GNCTD could not withdraw the certificate and were duty bound to take consequential action.
It is contended further that till 8.4.2008 Central Government did not require any de-sealing order and that only on 9.4.2008 after this Court had made the order were the premises de-sealed. It is submitted that the DGFT did not issue any letter requiring de-sealing of premises till 7.4.2008.
This Court has considered the submissions. Both the respondents do not deny that the appellate authority issued the order on 4.3.2008. The Central Government acting through the Directorate General of Foreign Trade at least were aware of the order since the appellate authority is a part of the same establishment. The materials also establish beyond doubt that till 7.4.2008 the Central Government took no steps towards intimating the Dy. Collector about the setting aside of the adjudication order. The other important feature is when the Deputy Commissioner was informed on 14.3.2008, sealing had not physically been effected. In the circumstances, the role of the Deputy Commissioner also has to be considered by the Court. Its records nowhere indicate that the petitioner was ever intimated that the recovery notice would be proceeded with and the premises sealed until the certified copy (of the appellate authority''s order) were furnished to it. There is no letter to that effect; there is no noting to that effect in the official file of the Deputy Commissioner about information to the petitioner in that regard. In these circumstances, both the authorities, in the opinion of the Court, have acted in utter and callous disregard of the petitioner''s right.
After all when a litigant succeeds in the Court, the least that can be expected from the authority is to honour the Court''s verdict. Although both respondents sought to distance themselves from this sorry state of affairs, the role of each of them cannot be lost sight of. The Central Government should have taken immediate and effective steps to intimate Deputy Commissioner to desist from proceeding with the recovery certificate, which it did not do. The latter after receiving the letter from the petitioner (about the appeal being allowed) at least should have to be cautious to verify about the existence of the adjudicatory order, which formed the basis of the entire sealing action. Both the authorities appear to have acted as if it were neither''s business to take action to effectuate the appellate authority''s order, setting aside the demand for Rs. 55 lakhs.
In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that even though the relief sought has now become academic, this is an appropriate case where the respondents should bear costs. Accordingly, each set of the respondents, i.e., respondent No. 1&2 and 5&6 shall bear the cost of the proceedings and pay to the petitioner Rs. 25,000/- each respectively within four weeks from today.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.