2015 (8) TMI 949 - HC - Central Excise

Application to not arrest and detain the petitioner - Held that - The power of arrest has been conferred upon the excise authorities on existence of certain conditions. It is well protected inasmuch the excise authorities would have to satisfy certain conditions as provided in Section 13 of the Act, 1944. There is no factual foundation in the writ petition to demonstrate that the apprehension of the petitioner is founded of any material on record. Moreover, if the power is exercised validly under the statute, the law does not permits this Court to interfere in exercise of such statutory power by issuing mandamus. - writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are enforcing a legal right and the respondents are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something but have failed to do so. - petitioner is not entitled for any relief. - Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Relief sought in the writ petition regarding arrest and harassment during an investigation.
- Interpretation of the order dated 23.1.2015 restraining arrest.
- Applicability and interpretation of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Examination of the power of arrest by excise authorities under Section 13 of the Act.
- Criteria for issuing a writ of mandamus.
- Precedents regarding the grant of a writ of mandamus based on statutory duty.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a writ petition seeking relief against potential arrest and harassment during an investigation. The petitioner sought a direction to prevent arrest by respondent no. 2 related to an ongoing investigation involving M/s Bharat Steel Rolling Mills. The court examined the order dated 23.1.2015, which did not restrain the arrest of the petitioner, emphasizing the purpose of the summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court clarified that the summons were for the petitioner to provide evidence within the Act's scope, dismissing the apprehension of detention as unfounded, and allowing the petitioner to appear before the authorities with counsel.

Regarding the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act, the court highlighted the power to summon individuals for inquiries and the obligation to produce documents or give evidence. The judgment emphasized that the power of arrest by excise authorities is governed by specific conditions outlined in Section 13 of the Act. The court noted the absence of factual support in the writ petition for the petitioner's apprehension, stating that interference in the exercise of statutory power through mandamus is not permissible if the power is validly exercised under the law.

Furthermore, the court discussed the criteria for issuing a writ of mandamus, emphasizing that it can only be granted when a statutory duty is imposed on the officer concerned, and there is a failure to discharge that obligation. Citing precedents such as Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain, the court reiterated that a writ of mandamus is contingent upon the existence of a statutory duty and its non-fulfillment by the concerned officer. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief, ultimately dismissing the writ petition for lacking merit.