2015 (10) TMI 2145 - HC - Central Excise

Failure of the DGFT to pass the orders as per the directions of the Apex Court - No endeavour has been made to seek an extension and for passing an order or taking a decision in terms of the order of this Court referred above. - Held that - Court do not countenance such state of affairs and particularly from the Directorate of Foreign Trade, the Director General of Foreign Trade or the Joint Director of Foreign Trade having his office at Mumbai. In the circumstances, we grant the time prayed but on the condition that the respondents shall pay costs, quantified at ₹ 1 lakh within four weeks from today to the petitioner. We refrain from imposing personal costs. The respondent No.1 Union of India / Central Government is free to recover the costs from either the then Director General of Foreign Trade or the Joint Director then functioning for the lapses on their part in complying with the orders and directions of this Court and thereafter creating difficulties for the Union of India/ Central Government. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with court order directing competent authority to decide petitioner's application.
2. Imposition of costs for non-compliance with court order.
3. Request for extension of time to comply with court order.

Analysis:
1. The High Court emphasized the importance of compliance with its orders, stating that the competent authority must make a decision in accordance with the court's directions. Failure to comply with court orders can lead to imposition of costs. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the accountability of the State and its officials to obey the law and act within constitutional limits. The court stressed that bureaucracy is also accountable for its actions and decisions, subject to judicial review. The judgment reiterated the need for expeditious and objective discharge of duties by the authorities.

2. In this case, the officer failed to comply with the court's direction for over a year and five months. The High Court imposed costs against the officer personally due to non-compliance. The court acknowledged that delays may occur, but officers must provide explanations and seek extensions if needed. Imposing costs personally against officers is a serious matter and should be done after careful consideration of the circumstances. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring public justice and preventing abuse of the legal process. In this instance, the court imposed costs against the officer for non-compliance.

3. The respondent sought an extension of four weeks beyond the specified deadline to make a decision in accordance with the law. The court granted the extension but imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the respondents, to be paid to the petitioner within four weeks. The court refrained from imposing personal costs but allowed the Union of India to recover the costs from the responsible officials for their lapses in complying with the court's orders. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with court orders.