2016 (8) TMI 639 - HC - Customs

PIL - Unauthorized import of chemicals of raw materials used for manufacturing drugs of 170 consignments. - the petitioner utilized different proceedings to carry out the campaign against the authorities and officers to facilitate his own business of smuggling and this public interest litigation at the behest of such a person should never be entertained. Held that - We are not inclined to entertain this public interest litigation filed by the petitioner, though we expect that the authorities would complete their task qua the consignments in question. We are also of the view that considering the antecedents of the petitioner and his endeavour to rake up an earlier issue to pressurise the concerned authorities to prevent action against him in future, no public interest litigation or any litigation affecting the larger interest other than the personal interest is to be entertained by this Court. - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Petitioner's antecedents and involvement in smuggling activities
- Allegation of unauthorized import of chemicals for drug manufacturing
- Utilization of legal proceedings against authorities
- Forgery of Customs documents and need for investigation
- Decision on entertaining the public interest litigation

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras involved several critical issues. Firstly, the court noted the petitioner's history of being booked and detained under COFEPOSA, with penalties upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner's attempt to seek a CBI enquiry in a previous case was also mentioned. It was highlighted that both the petitioner and his son were involved in smuggling activities, adding to the petitioner's questionable antecedents.

Regarding the specific allegation in the present case, it was related to the unauthorized import of chemicals for manufacturing drugs in a significant number of consignments. The court observed that the petitioner seemed to have used various legal proceedings to target authorities and officers, potentially to further his smuggling business. This raised doubts about the legitimacy of the public interest litigation initiated by the petitioner.

The court acknowledged the investigation into the alleged forgery of Customs documents, indicating a need for proper action based on the prima facie evidence found. Despite this, the court expressed its reluctance to entertain the public interest litigation filed by the petitioner. The judgment emphasized that while the authorities should complete their tasks regarding the consignments in question, the petitioner's history and attempts to manipulate legal processes for personal gain were significant factors in rejecting the litigation.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with the observation that no public interest litigation or any litigation affecting larger interests beyond personal gain should be entertained in this case. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the petitioner's motives and actions in determining the legitimacy of legal proceedings, ultimately closing the related motion.