9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 114 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of the PIL - Imposition of fee for availing benefit of Online Queue Management System upon the transporters/exporters exporting their goods to Bangladesh from various international border checkposts located at Indo-Bangladesh Border - validity of notifications dated 12th of July, 2022 and 29th of September, 2022 - HELD THAT - The record reflects that the writ petitioner is a practicing advocate of this Court unconnected with the business of export. A perusal of the writ petition reveals that in this public interest petition, cause of the exporters has been taken up by projecting the problems which may be faced by them on account of imposition of fee by the impugned notification. The issue of quid pro quo has also been raised which is mainly concerning the exporters. Nothing prevents the exporters to approach the competent Court and raise their grievances. Learned Advocate General has also raised the plea that the impugned levy infact has facilitated such exporters. No exporter is before this Court even in the representative capacity to ascertain this fact. A PIL on such an issue at the instance of an advocate practicing in this Court having no connection with the issue cannot be entertained especially when the affected persons are adequately well off to raise their personal cause in the appropriate judicial proceedings. So far as reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner in the matters of AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VERSUS SHARAD KUMAR JAYANTIKUMAR PASAWALLA AND OTHERS 1992 (5) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT , FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINERAL INDUSTRIES ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR. 2017 (10) TMI 1519 - SUPREME COURT , these judgments relate to the issue of a levy without authority of law which is an issue on merit which can be raised by the effected parties in appropriate maintainable proceedings. Even if the rule of locus is relaxed in a PIL, yet the issue which is involved in the present petition cannot be permitted to be raised at the instance of a person totally unconnected with the issue and unaffected by the notification. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General is sustained and present public interest litigation is held to be not maintainable which is accordingly dismissed, however, making it clear that if any affected party approaches the competent Court, then the issue will be decided on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made in this order - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of fees for Online Queue Management System at Indo-Bangladesh Border. 2. Alleged unreasonable restrictions and exorbitant fees imposed on transporters/exporters. 3. Violation of constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 366(29A), and 246A). 4. Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Fees for Online Queue Management System: The petitioner challenged the notifications dated 12th July 2022 and 29th September 2022, which imposed a fee for availing the benefit of the Online Queue Management System for transporters/exporters at various international border checkposts at the Indo-Bangladesh Border. The petitioner argued that the fee imposed unreasonable restrictions on trucks carrying goods and was exorbitantly high without any commensurate service being provided. 2. Alleged Unreasonable Restrictions and Exorbitant Fees: The petitioner contended that the high fee would prevent small-scale exporters from conducting their business, resulting in financial losses. It was argued that the notifications violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by imposing unreasonable restrictions and were also contrary to Article 265. The petitioner alleged that the State's action was against the trade policy and caused undue financial hardship to exporters without offering any commensurate service in exchange for the fee. 3. Violation of Constitutional Provisions: The petitioner submitted that the State had no authority to levy such a fee, which amounted to a compulsory extraction of money. It was argued that any such charge could only be levied under the Customs Act, and the State had no power to regulate export. The petitioner claimed that the notifications violated Articles 366(29A), 265, and 246A of the Constitution and also offended Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The petitioner further argued that the levy impinged on the foreign trade policy framed under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade and Development Act. 4. Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Advocate General raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that the petitioner, a practicing advocate, was not representing any business community or exporter. It was contended that the levy was optional and only those exporters who intended to avail the Online Queue Management System were required to pay the fee. The court examined the issue of locus standi and cited various judgments, including Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, to highlight that a person filing a PIL must have a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the petition. The court concluded that the petitioner, being an advocate with no connection to the export business, could not be entertained in a PIL on this issue. The court emphasized that affected parties were capable of raising their grievances in appropriate judicial proceedings. The court also referenced the judgments in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and Others, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and Others vs. Union of India and Another, and Asian Leather Limited & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., which related to the issue of a levy without authority of law but were deemed relevant for affected parties to raise in appropriate proceedings. Conclusion: The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Advocate General and dismissed the PIL, stating that it was not maintainable. The court clarified that affected parties could approach the competent court, and the issue would be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
|
