2022 (3) TMI 923 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking release of documents which the respondent concerned did not want to rely and return to the petitioner - documents seized in course of search and seizure proceeding which were not relied upon by the respondent concerned - principle of constructive res judicata - HELD THAT - This Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction cannot decide which are the documents seized from the petitioner are to be relied or not to be relied or are required for consideration or not in course of investigation by any investigating authority and it is the discretion of the respondent concerned authority and they will have to take the decision which are the documents relevant and are required to be retained in an investigation proceeding and which are not. So far as any other grievance by making fresh cause of action which petitioner wants to raise in this third writ petition on the basis of some facts or allegations which were already in existence at the time of filing first and second writ petition, petitioner is not entitled to raise those grievances since it is hit by the principle laid down under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as by the principle of constructive res judicata. The impugned order dated 28th January, 2022 does not require any interference - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of previous court orders and reliefs granted.
2. Compliance with court directions regarding return of documents.
3. Jurisdiction of the court in deciding on documents to be relied upon.
4. Entitlement to raise new grievances in subsequent writ petitions.
5. Application of the principles of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and constructive res judicata.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to the third round of litigation before the writ court through a writ petition. The court reviewed the history of the case, noting that the first writ petition was disposed of with a direction to release certain documents to the petitioner. Subsequently, a second writ petition was filed, focusing on the retention of seized documents not relied upon by the respondent. The court granted relief by ordering the return of such documents as per Rule 24A of the Central Excise Rule, 2020. The respondent complied with this order by releasing the non-relied upon documents, which were acknowledged by the petitioner. However, the petitioner filed a third writ petition, claiming that not all non-relied upon documents were furnished to them, leading to the current dispute.

Regarding the jurisdiction of the court, it was emphasized that the court in its writ jurisdiction cannot determine which seized documents are to be relied upon or retained during an investigation. This decision falls within the discretion of the investigating authority. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner cannot introduce new grievances in the third writ petition based on existing facts or allegations from previous petitions. Such actions are restricted by the principles of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and constructive res judicata.

Concluding the analysis, the court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 28th January, 2022, and subsequently dismissed the writ petition. However, the dismissal does not prevent the petitioner from seeking alternative remedies available under the law. The judgment, in W.P.A. No.2692 of 2022, was ultimately dismissed, maintaining the status quo established by the previous court orders and legal principles applied throughout the litigation process.