1996 (4) TMI 128 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Applicant (Assistant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) can be added as a Party-Respondent in the Writ Proceedings.
2. Whether the Applicant has a direct interest or locus standi in the subject matter of the Writ Proceedings.
3. Legal principles governing the addition of parties to judicial proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of the Applicant as a Party-Respondent:
The Applicant sought to be added as a Party-Respondent to the Writ Proceedings, arguing that he has a direct interest in the subject matter of the goods in question, which were attempted to be exported by the Petitioner. The Applicant contended that an examination of the goods under Section 106A of the Customs Act, 1962, would reveal discrepancies in the declaration made by the Petitioner, making the goods liable for confiscation.

The Court referred to Rule 53 of the Rules under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the addition of parties necessary for a complete adjudication of the issues involved. However, the Court concluded that the Applicant did not meet the criteria for being a necessary or proper party, as established in the leading cases of Moser v. Mars, Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, and Udit Narain Singh v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar. The Applicant's presence was not deemed necessary for effectually and completely adjudicating the questions involved in the Suit/Proceedings.

2. Direct Interest or Locus Standi of the Applicant:
The Court examined whether the Applicant had a direct interest or locus standi in the subject matter of the Writ Proceedings. The Petitioner opposed the application, arguing that the Applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary party and lacks locus standi.

The Court noted that the Writ Petition was primarily directed against the Customs Authorities and did not raise any issues requiring the presence of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.). No relief was sought against the D.R.I., and the Applicant's involvement appeared to be limited to prosecuting his own course of action. The Court emphasized that the Applicant's interest was not direct or legal but rather indirect and commercial, which does not satisfy the criteria for being added as a party.

3. Legal Principles Governing Addition of Parties:
The Court reiterated the legal principles governing the addition of parties to judicial proceedings. According to Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person can be added as a party if their presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceeding.

The Court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, Udit Narain Singh v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, and Ramesh Hira Chand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, to emphasize that a person must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation to be added as a party. The Court also referred to the decision in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. C.S. Patel, where the Supreme Court held that a party without a direct interest in the subject matter could not be aggrieved by the order.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Applicant does not qualify as a proper or necessary party in the Writ Proceedings. The Applicant's interest was neither direct nor legal, and his presence was not required for a complete adjudication of the issues involved. The application for adding the Applicant as a Party-Respondent was rejected, along with the other prayers made therein. The Court also noted that the order would not prevent the concerned authorities from taking any steps in accordance with the law.