2002 (8) TMI 128 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Can the State of U.P. and Union of India be sued through their respective representatives?
2. Is the writ of Mandamus justified when the petitioner has not impleaded necessary parties or sought to quash relevant orders?
3. Has the petitioner suppressed material facts and failed to disclose earlier writ petitions?
4. Did the statutory authorities commit any error of law requiring correction?
5. Is the petitioner entitled to any relief from the court in its discretionary jurisdiction?

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Can the State of U.P. and Union of India be sued through their respective representatives?
The court noted that the State of U.P. was impleaded through the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut, and the Union of India was impleaded through CEGAT. However, no relief was sought against the State of U.P., and CEGAT could not be sued as a representative of the Union of India. Therefore, the court found that the petitioner improperly sued these entities.

Issue 2: Is the writ of Mandamus justified when the petitioner has not impleaded necessary parties or sought to quash relevant orders?
The court observed that neither the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Meerut, nor CEGAT were impleaded as party respondents. Furthermore, the petitioner did not seek to quash the orders passed by these authorities. The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate unless it is shown that a statutory duty has been declined by the respondents, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Issue 3: Has the petitioner suppressed material facts and failed to disclose earlier writ petitions?
The court found that the petitioner did not disclose the filing of an earlier writ petition in 1989, which is a requirement as per court rules. The petitioner also did not append a copy of the order dated 8-4-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands.

Issue 4: Did the statutory authorities commit any error of law requiring correction?
The court examined the findings of the Collector and CEGAT, which included detailed observations about the involvement of the petitioner and his driver in the smuggling activities. The court found no error in the authorities' conclusions, especially given the clear findings that the driver was aware of the existence of secret boxes in the vehicle used for smuggling. The court agreed with the statutory authorities that the vehicle was liable for confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act and Section 72 of the Gold (Control) Act.

Issue 5: Is the petitioner entitled to any relief from the court in its discretionary jurisdiction?
The court noted that the petitioner did not prove that necessary precautions were taken to prevent the vehicle from being used for smuggling. The court also pointed out that the petitioner did not claim to be prepared to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation as provided under the relevant statutes. Given the petitioner's failure to demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements and the absence of any prejudice due to non-giving of express options, the court found no grounds to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was misconceived and imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and adhering to procedural requirements, and found no merit in the petitioner's claims for relief.