Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. versus M/S… — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (2008)

Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. versus M/S… — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (2008)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders of the High Court (dated 5.9.2008 and 4.10.2008 in CWP No. 13914 of 2008 and COCP No. 1536 of 2008) set aside; matters to be heard afresh by the High Court; parties to appear before the High Court without further notice; Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court requested to allot CWP No.13914/2008 and COCP No.1536/2008 to an appropriate Bench; appeals disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, while adjudicating an interim matter in the writ petition, could give a categorical finding on merits (that nothing showed the goods were even prima facie liable to confiscation) and decide the matter on merits finally, beyond the stage and scope of adjudication of the writ petition. +1 more

Court's answer

By giving a categorical merits finding on an interim matter and deciding the writ petition on merits finally, the High Court acted at a stage when it ought not to have done so and beyond the scope of adjudication of the writ petition; this was not the proper way for the High Court to deal with the matter.

Ratio / Principle

The High Court did not indicate any reason why the authorities' stipulated conditions (execution of an indemnity bond equivalent to the seizure value of the goods and/or a bank guarantee equal to 10% of the value of the goods) were not justified; this omission adds to the vulnerability of the order.

Key takeaways

The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside and the High Court is directed to hear the matters afresh; to avoid unnecessary delay the parties are to appear before the High Court without further notice.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Practice and procedure - Interim matters - Adjudication of - While adjudicating an interim matter, the High Court gave a categorical finding on merits, holding that there was nothing to show that the goods were even prima facie liable to confiscation, and decided the matter on merits finally - Held: Improper, as that was not the stage and it was beyond the scope of adjudication of the writ petition - Further, the High Court gave no reasons why the authorities' stipulated conditions, viz. execution of an indemnity bond equivalent to the seizure value of the goods and/or furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to 10% of the value of the goods, were not justified - Omission adds to vulnerability of the order - Impugned orders (Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2008 and 4.10.2008 in CWP No. 13914 of 2008 and COCP No. 1536 of 2008, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) set aside - High Court to hear the matters afresh; parties to appear before the High Court without further notice; Hon'ble Chief Justice requested to allot CWP No.13914/2008 and COCP No.1536/2008 to an appropriate Bench - Constitution of India, Article 226 referred in headnote.

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 133

"'"

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

A

v.

M/S. KUNDAN RICE MILLS LTD.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 6457-58 of 2008)

--<

NOVEMBER 03, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

B

Practice and procedure - Interim matters - Adjudication of - Categorical finding on merits by High Court - Propriety c of - Held: Not proper - It was not the stage of doing so and was beyond the scope of adjudication of writ petition - Thus, order of High Court set aside - High Court to hear the matters afresh - Constitution of India, Article 226.

)..

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6457-6458 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2008 and 4.10.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 13914 of 2008 and COCP No. 1536 of 2008 in CWP No. 13914 of 2008.

D

E

Gopal Subrama.nium, A.S.G., Harish Chandra, Rahul Kaushik, Ameet Chander and Anil Katiyar for the Appellants.

-~ '

Mukul Rohtagi, S. Ganesh, Reetesh Singh. Janvi Wora, Pranav Vyas and Surya Kant for the Respondents .

F

....-

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

.,.

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Heard.

G

Though these matters were listed for admission, learned counsel for the parties requested the matters to be taken up for final disposal.

•

Leave granted.

133

H

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 134

134

J,

A 4. We find that while adjudicating an interim m~atter, the High Court has given a categorical finding on merits holding inter-alia that there is nothing to show that even prima facie, goods are liable to confiscation. The High Court appears to have decided the matter on merits finally even though that was B not the stage for doing so and was beyond the scope of adjudication of the writ petition. This is not the way the High Court should have dealt with the matter. Apart from that, the · High Court has not indicated any reason as to why the condition of execution of indemnity bond equivalent to seizure value of c goods and/or furnishing of bank guarantee equal to 10% of value of goods, as was stipulated by the authorities, was not justified. This also adds to the vulnerability of the order. We set aside the impugned orders of the High Court. Let the High Court hear the matters afresh. To avoid unnecessary delay, let 0^{the pqrties appear before the High Court, without further notice,} on 1i11.2008.

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the matters, i.e. CWP No.13914/2008 and COCP No.1536/2008 to an appropriate Bench.

E

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

N.J.

Appeals disposed of.