AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Debangsu Basak, J.—The petitioner has assailed an order dated July 7, 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the impugned order is bad on account of lack of jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities in issuing the show cause notice and that, the Customs Authorities had acted beyond the time prescribed by the High Court in issuing the second show cause notice.
The respondent Authorities are represented.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
A reasoned and detailed order dated July 7, 2011 passed by the Customs Authorities ordering suspension of the CHA licence is under challenge in the present writ petition.
It appears from the record that, prior to the issuance of the suspension order, the Customs Authorities had issued a show cause notice. The show cause notice was replied to by the petitioner. In the reply to the show cause notice the petitioner did not take the point of lack of jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities in invoking the provisions of the Act or the regulations. On the contrary in the reply to the show cause notice the petitioner has stated that although the Authorities have the power, in the facts of the case the power should not be exercised.
So far as the delay in issuing the second show cause notice is concerned, the time period fixed by the Court in the earlier writ petition is not such that the delay in issuance of the second show cause notice is fatal to it.
The reasoned order passed by the Authority acting under a statute is justiciable. However to sustain a writ petition against such an order the petitioner has to demonstrate that, such order suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, or is perverse or has been passed for extraneous considerations or is such that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The Writ Court is not to sit in appeal over the impugned order, reassess the evidence and come to a different finding. The petitioner not able to substantiate any ground on which a reasoned order such as the one under challenge in the present writ petition has to be set aside.
In such circumstances, there is no merit in the present writ petition. W.P. No. 281 of 2012 is dismissed. No order as to costs.