The High Court of Kerala dismissed this intra-court appeal challenging a single judge order that refused to interfere in customs proceedings. The court held there was no violation of natural justice regarding the denial of a fourth adjournment restricted under the Customs Act.
Writ appeal dismissed; appeal against the Single Judge's order rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/18TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WA.No. 1133 of 2017 () IN WP(C).8301/2017 ------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8301/2017 DATED 04-04-2017
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :-
JABIN K. BASHEER, S/O.BASHEER K.A., KUDIYIL HOUSE, RANDAR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.MANU TOM SRI.K.R.JITHIN SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :-
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 1.
2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009.
BY SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL BY SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ &
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
W.A. No. 1133 of 2017
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
W.A.1133/17 2
notice of these proceedings. He was then released. Proceedings were taken up. He sought adjournments. Three adjournments were given. But when the fourth adjournment was asked for, the authorities denied it presumably keeping in view the provisions of Section 122A of the Customs Act, 1962, which restricts the number of adjournments to three. Even though the wordings of the provisions of the Customs Act are mandatory , they can at best be directory in operation, but that does not mean that the provisions has to be ignored. In exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded in writing, more than three adjournments can be given. In this case, three adjournments had been granted but even thereafter time was sought. But the adjournments cannot be a right. There was an urgency in the matter. Sufficient time had been granted. Thus, to complain of violation of principles of natural justice would be futile in such circumstances.
3
W.A.1133/17
present case, we do not consider it to be a case of failure to observe natural justice. We thus find no error in the order of
the learned Single Judge in refusing to interfere in the matter.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice
Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Judge
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sou.8/6.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the refusal to grant a fourth adjournment in customs proceedings violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the alternative remedy is applicable when there is an alleged violation of natural justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila ParishadExplained¶26
M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad (Now Zila Parshad), Muzaffar Nagar [AIR 1969 SC 556] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jabin K. Basheer
Union of India
Commissioner of Customs, Cochin
Navaniti Prasad Singh
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
