2007 (7) TMI 18 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - Procedure followed by the competent authority not in accordance with direction given by the HC and direction given to provide personal hearing and then passed the reasoned order in respect to condonation of delay

Summary

Issues:
Impugning an order passed by Respondent No. 4 and seeking a declaration that the order is a nullity, seeking direction to the competent authority to decide the matter in dispute after granting personal hearing.

Analysis:
The petition in question challenges an order issued by Respondent No. 4 and requests a declaration that the order is null and void. It further seeks a directive for the competent authority to adjudicate the matter in dispute after providing a personal hearing. The background reveals that an earlier petition, Writ Petition No. 398 of 2006, was disposed of at the admission stage by a Division Bench of the Court. The subject matter of the earlier petition pertained to the rejection of an application for the fixation of Brand Rate of duty drawback under the relevant Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules. The petitioner contended that the competent authority for condoning the delay in filing the application was Respondent No. 2, the Joint Secretary (Drawback) at the Directorate of Drawback, Ministry of Finance. Despite the application being submitted to Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 4 erroneously issued the impugned order. During the admission hearing, the Central Government Standing Counsel indicated that the competent authority would reconsider the petitioner's application if directed by the Court. Consequently, the petition was allowed in accordance with the prayer clause seeking a fresh hearing by the competent authority.

Following the Court's direction, the competent authority was instructed to review the application for condonation of delay within three months. However, instead of complying with the Court's directive, the competent authority, through letters, provided certain instructions to Respondent No. 4 without granting a hearing to the petitioner. This action led to the competent authority deciding against the petitioner on the merits of the delay condonation issue. The Court noted that this procedure was incorrect and not in line with its directions. The Court emphasized that if specific directions were given to a subordinate officer, the officer must act accordingly without discretion. Consequently, the hearing conducted by Respondent No. 4 did not meet the standards set by the Court in the earlier Writ Petition.

In light of these circumstances, the Court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner, directing the competent authority to provide a hearing and decide on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The Court emphasized the need for the competent authority to issue a reasoned order independently, without being influenced by any prior directions given to Respondent No. 4. The rule was made absolute accordingly, and the petition was disposed of, clarifying the requirement for a fair and unbiased decision-making process by the competent authority.