Dismissed

V.Narayanan v. the Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus

Kerala HC5 Jul 2013WP(C)/2345/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a sanction order as violative of fundamental rights. The Court held that since an alternative remedy of filing an application under Section 227 CrPC exists, the writ petition is disposed of without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without any order of relief on the merits, advising the petitioner to approach the trial court under Section 227 CrPC.

V.Narayanan Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus — Corruption | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013/14TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 2345 of 2010 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.NARAYANAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERRATE, MANANCHIRA KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-18.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX BY ASG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-072013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 2345 of 2010

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶16

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER C NO.VIII/10/4/2001 DT. 20.9.2001 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE DIVISION, KOZHIKODE.

¶17

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF TOUR PROGRAMME OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT ON 18.5.2002

¶18

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.5.2002 SENT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,SCP DIVISION, KOZHIKODE.

¶19

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C.NO.,II/3946/2002-VIG CX/379/03 DT,. 7.11.2003 SENT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

¶20

EXT.P4(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C NO.IV/16/70/2009 - RTI DT. 15.9.2009 SENT BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (TECH) & CPIO TO THE PETITIONER

¶21

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. SECRET O.C. NO.4/2002 DT. 19.7.2002 SENT BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DIVISIOIN TO THE COMMISSIONERM, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT.

¶22

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OFSELF CONTAINED NOTE OF THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ALONG WITH THE LETTER OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE AND THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF VIGILANCE, CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS & CENTRAKL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.

¶23

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF SANCTION ORDER NO.C.NO.II/39/46/2002/VIG.CX. DT. 9.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KOCHI - 18

¶24

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.R1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3-12-2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P © NO.35640/2008

¶26

EXT.R1 (a): TRUE COPY OF FACTUAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.284/CR/PKD/2006 OF CRIME BRANCH, CID, PALAKKAD

¶27

EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 12-5-2005 OF CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

¶28

EXT.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE CONTAINING 7 (2.2) AND 7 (2.3) OF VIGILANCE MANUAL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

W.P ( C) No.2345 of 2010

¶33

Dated this the 5^th July, 2013

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned senior counsel

¶36

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, learned senior standing counsel for Central Board of Excise and Customs. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

¶37

i) To call for the records leading upto Ext.P7 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

¶38

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction forbearing the respondent from proceeding further pursuant to Ext.P7 order; and

¶39

iii) To declare that the order Ext.P7 is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authority who accorded sanction has not applied its mind to all relevant facts and has mechanically

¶41

passed the order. Sri.Thomas Mathew Ndellimoottil,

¶42

W.P ( C) No.2345 of 2010

¶43

¶44

learned senior standing counsel for Central Board of Excise and Customs vehementally opposed it. It is open to the petitioner to agitate his contentions before the trial court during framing of charge, by filing an appropriate application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶45

Writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the submission of the learned senior counsel.

¶46

Sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE

/True copy/

P.A to Judge

W.P ( C) No.2345 of 2010

¶51

¶52

W.P ( C) No.2345 of 2010

¶53

V.Narayanan v. the Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Narayanan v. the Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. Vs K.S.E.Board.

Jacob Thomas Vs Chairman

Ajitha T.J. Vs State of Kerala

A.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Sri.K.G.Mohanlal

P.v.Suraj Babu Vs State of Kerala

Yaliakkal Industrial Enterprises Vs Union of India