1979 (2) TMI 161 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant should be added as a respondent in Civil Rule No. 57(w) of 1979.
2. Whether the appellant has a direct interest or merely a commercial interest in the subject matter.
3. Whether the Customs Authorities acted within their rights in withholding the release of goods.
4. The locus standi of the appellant to be impleaded as a respondent.
5. The relevance of cited legal precedents to the appellant's case.
6. The legal principles governing the addition of parties in a writ proceeding.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of the Appellant as a Respondent:
The appellant, Sri Mukund Shah, filed an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order rejecting his application to be added as a respondent in Civil Rule No. 57(w) of 1979. The learned single Judge did not record reasons for rejecting the application. The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge should have provided reasons, however brief, for not entertaining the prayer for addition of parties.

2. Direct vs. Commercial Interest:
The appellant claimed to be a small-scale industrial unit in Maharashtra, engaged in manufacturing Metallised Polyester Film and Metallic Yarn. He alleged that M/s. Golden Polyester Industries Pvt. Ltd. grossly under-valued the price of Metallised Polyester Film, giving them an unfair advantage. The appellant contended that this "illegal strategy" would drive honest importers out of the market. However, the court noted that the appellant's interest was merely commercial, not proprietary or direct. The Supreme Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwer Begum emphasized that a person should have a direct interest, not just a commercial interest, in the subject matter of litigation.

3. Customs Authorities' Actions:
M/s. Golden Polyester Industries Pvt. Ltd. sought a writ of Mandamus to compel the release of imported goods and exemption from wharfage and demurrage. The Customs Authorities received complaints about under-valuation of the goods, leading to a potential loss of government revenue. Show cause notices were issued for confiscation and penalty for mis-declaration of value. The court found that the Customs Authorities were diligently defending the writ petition and that the appellant had no proprietary interest in the goods.

4. Locus Standi of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that he should be added as a respondent due to potential adverse effects on his business from the release of the goods. However, the court held that suffering business losses or unfair competition was insufficient to establish locus standi. The appellant had no cause of action against the Customs Authorities and could not maintain an independent writ petition regarding the withholding of the release order. The court cited The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and Others v. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. and Others, which held that a competitor cannot prevent another from carrying on business based on regulatory non-compliance.

5. Relevance of Cited Legal Precedents:
The appellant cited several cases to support his position:
- Regina v. Paddington Valuation Officer: The court noted that in this case, the Corporation was directly affected by the Valuation List, unlike the appellant who had no direct interest.
- Attorney General v. Independent Broadcasting Authority: This case dealt with a private citizen's right to action when the Attorney General refused to apply for an injunction, which was not relevant to the appellant's situation.
- Regina v. Greater London Council: The court found this case irrelevant as it involved citizens with sufficient interest challenging a public authority's unlawful actions.
- Gadde Venkateswar Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others: The court noted that a petitioner should have a personal or individual right in the subject matter, which the appellant lacked in this case.

6. Legal Principles on Addition of Parties:
The court concluded that the appellant had no locus standi to be impleaded as a respondent. The appellant's commercial interest did not justify his addition as a party in the writ proceeding. The court dismissed the appeal and the application for interim orders, emphasizing that the appellant had no cause of action against the Customs Authorities and no direct interest in the litigation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed without costs, and the application for interim orders was disposed of. The court rejected the prayer for a certificate under Article 133(1) of the Constitution and the prayer for a stay of the judgment's operation.

← Previous Next →