2015 (10) TMI 1038 - HC - Central Excise

Application for exemption from personal appearance - Held that - A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 indicates that the respondent had challenged the jurisdiction of the petitioner to act as an estate officer as it was contended that a notification under Section 3 of the said Act had not been issued. Therefore, the District Judge had called upon the petitioner to appear in person and file an affidavit to explain the position regarding the formal conferment of power as an Estate Officer. A personal appearance of a statutory authority, whose jurisdiction is challenged is, ordinarily, not warranted - impugned order, insofar as it directs the personal appearance of the petitioner, is set aside. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
Exemption from personal appearance before District Judge in appeal under Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 due to challenge on jurisdiction as an Estate Officer.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought exemption from personal appearance before the District Judge in an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, against an order passed under Section 5 of the said Act. The respondent had challenged the petitioner's jurisdiction as an Estate Officer, arguing that a notification under Section 3 of the Act had not been issued. Consequently, the District Judge had summoned the petitioner to appear in person and submit an affidavit clarifying the formal conferment of power as an Estate Officer. Generally, the personal appearance of a statutory authority whose jurisdiction is contested is not necessary.

The petitioner's counsel assured the court that a detailed affidavit addressing the jurisdictional issue would be submitted to the District Judge within a week. Considering this assurance, the High Court set aside the impugned order that directed the petitioner's personal appearance. The court clarified that its decision should not be interpreted as expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute. If the District Judge deems it necessary to require the petitioner's personal appearance, he is free to do so by issuing a reasoned order outlining the necessity.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with the direction that the impugned order, mandating the petitioner's personal appearance, be set aside. The court emphasized that the decision does not prejudge the underlying dispute's merits, leaving it to the District Judge to determine the necessity of the petitioner's presence based on appropriate reasons.