1998 (4) TMI 146 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Second writ petition filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents.
2. Allegations of coercive action by the Central Excise Department.
3. Abuse of court proceedings by filing a second writ petition.
4. Derogatory and personal allegations made against the respondents.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a second writ petition filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents. The first writ petition was dismissed on 17th March, 1998. The petitioner challenged an order issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-1, Khatima, regarding adjudication proceedings and dues to be paid. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had alternative remedies available, such as approaching the Appellate Authority, and rushing to the High Court with a writ petition was deemed misconceived. The first writ petition was dismissed, and the Court did not find it appropriate to grant an ad interim order as the petition seemed to be filed solely for seeking a stay order.

2. The petitioner, in the second writ petition, reiterated grievances against coercive actions taken by the Central Excise Department, specifically related to detaining goods in reference to adjudication orders. The petitioner mentioned that appeals had been filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) with stay applications. The Court noted that the second writ petition appeared to be an attempt to secure a stay order from the High Court after the first petition failed. The petitioner's actions were viewed as an abuse of court proceedings, especially with a change in legal representation.

3. The Court also addressed the derogatory and personal allegations made by the petitioner against the officers of the Central Excise Department. The allegations were considered inappropriate, and the Court expressed reservations about allowing such accusations without the respondents being parties to the writ petition. The petitioner was warned that the respondents had the right to seek action for damages or other remedies in an appropriate forum. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing its reluctance to interfere in the matter due to the nature of the allegations and the abuse of court proceedings observed.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the dismissal of the second writ petition due to the petitioner's misuse of court proceedings, failure to exhaust alternative remedies, and inappropriate allegations made against the respondents.