2019 (11) TMI 1350 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - authority to file an appeal - case of respondent is that a person, who is not a party to a writ petition, cannot file an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition and therefore, the appellant has no locus to challenge the ad interim order passed by the learned single Judge - By the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, the process of registering sales contract for import of Poppy sees from China in response to the public notice has been stayed. - HELD THAT - Since the matter is sub-judice before the learned single Judge and has come up before us only against an ex parte interim order, therefore, we do not intend to deal with the merits of the case as the same has to be dealt with by learned single Judge. However, the fact remains that the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned single Judge adversely affects all the parties whose applications are pending for registration in response to the public notice dated 04.10.2019. Since the impugned order has been passed without hearing the parties including the appellant, which would be adversely affecting it s interests, and the impugned order, in fact, tantamounts to violation of principles of natural justice, we are inclined to quash the order dated 24.10.2019 insofar as it pertains to the appellant herein and direct the respondent no.1 herein to implead the appellant has respondent in the writ petition.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against an interim order in a writ petition without impleading the appellant
- Locus standi of a person to challenge a writ petition order
- Adverse impact of an interim order on parties not impleaded in the writ petition

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought permission to file an appeal against an ad-interim order restraining the registration of sales contract for importing Poppy seeds from China. The appellant argued that he was aggrieved by the order and should have been impleaded in the writ petition.
2. The respondent contended that a person not a party to a writ petition cannot challenge the order. However, the appellant argued that the cited precedent was not applicable to the current situation.
3. The High Court noted that the appellant was adversely affected by the order passed without affording an opportunity to be heard. The Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's right as an aggrieved person to challenge the order.
4. The Court highlighted a previous case where appellants without locus were not allowed to challenge a judgment. However, in this case, since the appellant was aggrieved and the order was passed without hearing him, the appeal was permitted.

5. The Court further examined the merits of the case and found that the impugned order adversely affected parties whose applications were pending for registration. The order was passed ex parte, impacting the interests of those not impleaded in the writ petition.
6. The Court refrained from delving into the case's merits but emphasized that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice by not hearing all affected parties. The order was quashed regarding the appellant, directing his impleadment in the writ petition for further proceedings.
7. The Court instructed necessary amendments to the writ petition and directed the learned single Judge to hear the parties, including the appellant, for consideration of interim relief. The writ appeal was disposed of with these directions.