2016 (2) TMI 1379 - SC - Indian Laws

Invocation of writ jurisdiction - HELD THAT - Ordinarily writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. Since the High Court has not considered the merits of the appeal preferred before the Division Bench, the matter remanded to the Division Bench for re-hearing the appeal on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of judgment and order dated 19-2-2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in G.A. No. 29 of 2013 arising out of W.P. No. 458 of 2012.
2. Consideration of statutory provisions governing limitation in the context of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Invocation of writ jurisdiction for directing authorities to act contrary to law.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court heard the appeal where the Union of India was aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta. The Division Bench of the High Court had made observations regarding a letter dated 9-6-2011, which was not on record before them. The Division Bench did not delve into the merits of the case but set aside the order of the Single Judge and granted liberty to the writ-Petitioner to prefer an appeal within 30 days. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should exercise its discretion consistent with the provisions of the Act and enforce the rule of law, ensuring that authorities act in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court set aside the order under appeal and remanded the matter to the Division Bench for re-hearing the appeal on its merits without being influenced by any previous observations.

2. The Court referred to previous judgments in the context of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing that even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is required to enforce the rule of law. The Court agreed with the view that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to direct authorities to act contrary to the law. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for re-hearing based on its merits, without considering the merits of the controversy between the parties.

3. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case and allowed the appeals to the extent mentioned. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that authorities act within the legal framework. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be used to direct actions contrary to the law and that decisions should be made in accordance with statutory provisions and legal principles. The matter was remanded for re-hearing, emphasizing the need for a fair consideration of the appeal on its merits without any prior influence from previous orders or observations.