Dismissed

Jalaram Timbers v. The Union of India

Madras HC8 Jan 2024WP/14580/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Timber importer challenged condition No.3 of an Office Memorandum levying penalty/inspection fee for relaxation of offshore fumigation norms under the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003. Following an earlier batch order in W.P.No.18405 of 2019, the Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to challenge the vires of the Order.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty given to challenge vires of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003 if so advised. No costs.

Jalaram Timbers Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.14560 of 2020

¶9

Jalaram Timbers,

¶10

represented by its Partner, Mr.Moolshankar Patel, S/o. Late Mr.Shivdas Patel, New Door No.186, Old Door No.95/4-A, G.N.T. Road,

¶11

Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066. ... Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Union of India, Rep by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture,

¶14

Krichi Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶15

2.The Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine Station, Door No.101, Plot No.110, 2^nd Street, C.G.E. Colony, Tuticorin.

¶16

3.The Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine Station, G.S.T. Road,

¶17

Near Trident Hotel,

¶18

Page 1 of 12

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶21

Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to condition No.3 of Office Memorandum in O.M.No.8/131/2016-PP.II dated 27.12.2018 issued by the 1 st respondent under the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 and quash the same as illegal.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Stalin For Respondents : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel Senior Panel Counsel

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of condition No.3 of Office Memorandum in O.M.NO.8/131/2016-PP.II, dated 27.12.2018, issued by the 1^st respondent under the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003.

¶27

A learned Single Judge of this Court at Principal Seat in a batch of

¶28

cases in W.P.No.18405 of 2019 etc., batch [M/s. Best Timbers, Rep. its

¶29

Partner, Mr.C.R.Krishna vs. Union of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary,

¶30

Page 2 of 12

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶33

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi and the Plant

¶34

Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine Station, Tuticorin and batch] has passed an order dated 06.09.2021 and disposed the batch. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:

¶35

“W.P.No.18405 of 2019 is filed questioning

¶36

the validity and/or correctness of the condition No. (iii) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2018 issued by the first respondent in and by which penal fee was levied for those consignments covered under the bills of lading in the country of export, before 30th June 2019.

¶37

2. Similar condition was imposed by the first respondent by issuing various other Office Memorandum and they are the subject matter of the other writ petitions.

¶38

3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are importers, importing timbers and other goods from various countries across the world. Earlier, wooden logs were procured from local resources within the country. However, felling of spontaneous trees for industrial purpose has been prohibited by virtue of the judgment of the

¶39

Page 3 of 12

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶42

Honourable Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India. Therefore, the importers like the petitioners have resorted to import wooden logs from countries like Latin America, Western Africa etc., It is contended that the wood required for the Industry has to be fumigated/treated with “Methyl Bromide” but it is prohibited in the European Countries and therefore, the wooden logs could not be subjected to fumigation at the port of Boarding. Taking note of the difficulties faced by the importers, the first respondent in exercise of the power conferred under Order 14 of the Plant Quarantine Regulation of Import into India Order, 2003, granted relaxation of fumigation norms at the port of Boarding and permitted fumigation at the Port of discharge. Having relaxed the fumigation norms for some time, the first respondent imposed certain conditions for importing timber/wooden logs. One of the conditions being imposition of penalty for fumigation of the wooden logs Contending that the Plant Quarantine Regulations of Import into India Order, 2003 does not provide any power or authority to the first respondent to levy any penalty, the petitioners are before this

¶43

Page 4 of 12

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶46

Court with this batch of writ petitions.

¶47

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order 2003 framed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 (2 of 1974) regulates the import of various agricultural articles including wooden logs into India. In Para No.9, Chapter VI of the said Regulation, timber can be imported into India only if it is appropriately fumigated/treated and is accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued at the country of export. It is contended that such fumigation is prohibited in European Countries. However, the first respondent relaxed such condition periodically and permitted import of wooden logs and other products. While so, by the impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2018, which is impugned in W.P.No.18405 of 2019 as well as by issuing similar other Office Memorandum, the first respondent imposed certain conditions for relaxing the off shore fumigation. One of conditions is that the consignment will be charged with

¶48

Page 5 of 12

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶51

penalty/inspection fee. According to the petitioners, while granting relaxation earlier, the first respondent did not impose any such penalty or levy. The first respondent also did not assign any new reason for imposition of penalty in the Office Memorandums, which are impugned in these writ petitions. Therefore, challenging the condition No.3 of the Office Memorandum issued by the first respondent, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

¶52

5. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent in WP No. 18405 of 2019 as well as the other counsel appearing for the respondents, in unison, would oppose the prayers sought for in these writ petitions. By placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.No. 18405 of 2019, it is contended that the Plant Quarantine Regulatory Measures in India formed the basis for enactment of The Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914. Section 3 of the said Act provides the power to the Central Government to regulate or prohibit import of articles which are likely to cause infection. The Plant Quarantine

¶53

Page 6 of 12

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶56

Order, 2003 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under The Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914. to regulate import and prohibit import of plants and plant products into India. It is in this direction, the Office Memorandums, which are impugned in these writ petitions, were issued to act as a deterrent to import of woods without fumigation. At the same time, taking note of the need for wood in the Country, it was decided to enhance the inspection fee on import of all agricultural commodities including timber as they are imported in violation of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003. Above all, it is contended that the importing Country has a right to impose conditions to safe guard its bio-security and it cannot be called in question by the petitioners. It is stated that when any consignment from India reaches the other country without complying with the formalities or requirements, the importing country would either destroy or deports the consignment. In the present case, with the object of protecting bio-security of the Country, restricted use of Methyl Bromide is resorted to. It is further stated that initially, relaxation was granted for those bills of lading issued by the

¶57

Page 7 of 12

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶60

country of Export upto 31.12.2019 and thereafter, it was decided to allow fumigation at the port of discharge with penalty. However, the petitioners have not challenged the Office Memorandum fixing a cut off date as 31.12.2019. In any event, the office memorandums were issued in exercise of the powers provided under Clause 14 (2) of Chapter VI of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003 wherein it is specifically provided that in the event of grant of relaxation by the competent authority, the consignment shall be released after charging the fee for import permit and fee for plant quarantine inspection at five times of normal rates. While so, it is futile on the part of the petitioners to contend that penalty was imposed by the first respondent without any authority of law. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions.

¶61

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners as well the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on record. The main contentions putforth on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the penalty clause incorporated in

¶62

Page 8 of 12

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶65

the Office Memorandums issued by the first respondent is arbitrary and the first respondent is not empowered to impose any penalty or fee while granting relaxation of the fumigation norms. Such a contention urged on behalf of the

¶66

petitioners in these writ petitions cannot be countenanced inasmuch as Clause 14 (2) of Chapter VI of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003 empowers the first respondent to impose levy as a condition precedent for permitting the import of the wooden logs. Thus, a discretion has been conferred to the first

¶67

respondent to impose levy and it cannot be called in question by the petitioners. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief, as prayed for in these writ petitions.

¶68

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respective petitioners prayed this Court to permit the petitioners to challenge the vires of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003 or any other Rules which empower the first respondent to levy penalty, if they are so advised.

¶69

8. Granting such liberty to the petitioners,

¶70

Page 9 of 12

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶72

W.P.No.14580 of 2019

¶73

all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶74

The petitioner's case is not different from the above cases decided by

¶75

the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 06.09.2021, in W.P.No.18405 of 2019 etc., batch. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to dismiss this Writ Petition by giving a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the vires of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 or any other Rules, which empowers the first respondent to levy penalty, if so advised, in terms of the above said order dated 06.09.2021, made in W.P.No. 18405 of 2019 etc., batch.

¶76