Allowed

Sri. Asharudheenmannan Kandy, v. Assistant Director(Plaint Protection Officer)

Kerala HC17 Feb 2021WA/168/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Full Bench allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the rejection of relaxation regarding Phytosanitary Certificate import requirements. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Director for consideration of the consignment nature within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Ext.P4) set aside; matter remitted to 2nd respondent for fresh disposal within three weeks.

Sri. Asharudheenmannan Kandy, Vs Assistant Director(Plaint Protection Officer) — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

¶7

WA.No.168 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25024/2020(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

SRI. ASHARUDHEENMANNAN KANDY, AGED 66 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S.BROTHERS TRADE LINKS, DOOR NO.9/243, POOVAMBAYI, KINALOOR P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 612, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNY HOLDER, SHRI.AHAMMED KOYA MANNAN KANDY.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.M.BALAGOPAL SMT.R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA)

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR(PLAINT PROTECTION OFFICER) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PLANT QUARANTINE STATION, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN, PIN - 682 003.

¶14

2 JOINT SECRETARY (PP AND RFS) 247-A, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COOPERATION AND FARMERS WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRISHI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001.

¶15

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN, PIN - 682 009.

¶16

R1-2 BY SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.V., CGC R3 BY ADV. SMT.THANUJA ROSHAN

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.168/2021

-2-

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

¶22

S.V. Bhatti, J.

¶23

The petitioner is the appellant. The appellant filed W.P.(C) No.25024/2020 challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal and as an order failing to exercise the discretion available in this behalf to the 2^nd respondent and also as an order omitting to consider the relevant documents available.

¶24

The petitioner imported wooden (teak) furniture from Indonesia. Ext.P2 is the Bill of Entry. The clearance of consignment covered by Ext.P2 was not granted for want of Phytosanitary Certificate from the country of origin. The appellant claiming relaxation, filed Ext.P3 application before the 2^nd respondent. The principal objection of the writ petitioner against Ext.P4 order, is that it failed to take note of Ext.P9, manifest, and the nature of

¶25

consignment covered by Ext.P2. The ground by referring to which

¶26

W.A. No.168/2021

¶27

-3-

¶28

Ext.P4 has been issued may not survive for consideration, if the other two aspects adverted to above are considered by the 2^nd respondent. Stated briefly, the gist of the complaint is that the relaxation claimed by the appellant was rejected on a monotonous consideration of the application and without appreciating the nature of consignment.

¶29

We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. We are of the view that the decision in Ext.P4 refers to one circumstance, namely alleged past conduct of the appellant. The appellant states that it has a case on the grant of relaxation by looking at the nature of consignment, and whether, as a matter of fact, the certificate insisted upon by the appellant is warranted or not. Undisputably, this perspective of the case is not considered by the respondents.

¶30

Advocate Balagopal made serious attempts for a

¶31

favourable finding from this Court by inviting our attention to all the exhibits. We are persuaded not to express a view at this stage of

¶32

W.A. No.168/2021

¶33

-4-

¶34

the matter, particularly for the view we are proposing to take on Ext.P4.

¶35

We are of the view that Ext.P4 is unsustainable, liable to be set aside, and hence is set aside. The matter is remitted to 2^nd respondent for consideration and disposal within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant is given liberty to file additional representation by enclosing a copy of this judgment within three weeks from today.

¶36

The Writ Appeal is allowed as indicated above.

¶37

Sd/S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶38

jjj

Sri. Asharudheenmannan Kandy, v. Assistant Director(Plaint Protection Officer)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Asharudheenmannan Kandy, v. Assistant Director(Plaint Protection Officer)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muneerul Anam Sangham Akkode (South) Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

Anil Kumar Gopinathan Vs the Commissiioner of Income Tax

Chunakkara South Muslim Jamaath Vs Kerala State Waqf Board

R.Keerthana Vs State of Kerala

C.O.Johny Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

C.O.Johny Vs Commissioner of Income Tax