2019 (3) TMI 357 - HC - Customs

Violations of Coastal Zone Regulations - matter pending before Supreme Court - resumption of construction - petitioner submits that the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court have nothing to do with the issue raised in this writ petition - Held that - I reckon whatever relief this Court can grant in this writ petition is the relief the Supreme Court can eminently consider. Once a competent judicial forum, its hierarchy notwithstanding, has an issue before it, all other collateral or incidental issues must also be placed only before that forum. Courts will not, as a matter of judicial propriety, entertain parallel proceedings, even when the relief sought, as the petitioner puts it, is limited. Piecemeal and fractured adjudication is the least of the judicial virtues. Petition closed.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Coastal Zone Regulations during construction of a resort, Customs duty and penalty imposed on imported goods, Writ petition filed seeking relief from Customs Authorities' actions.

Violation of Coastal Zone Regulations:
The petitioner obtained a No Objection Certificate in 1996 to construct a seven-star resort by Vembanad Lake, 40 kms away from the coastline. Allegations of violating Coastal Zone Regulations arose during construction, leading to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that the construction was halted pending Supreme Court proceedings, and Customs Authorities imposed duty and penalty on imported goods. The petitioner's counsel contended that the Supreme Court proceedings were unrelated to the Customs issue, seeking relief to prevent disposal of goods until the Supreme Court matter was resolved. The Court emphasized that all related issues should be addressed in the competent judicial forum, avoiding parallel proceedings for comprehensive adjudication.

Customs Duty and Penalty Imposition:
Customs Authorities imposed duty and statutory levy under Section 72(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a penalty of ?50,000 under Section 117. The petitioner, instead of appealing against the imposition, filed a writ petition seeking relief. The Standing Counsel argued that the goods were taxable, and the petitioner should pay to have them released to avoid statutory consequences. The Court noted that the relief sought in the writ petition fell within the purview of the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of consolidated adjudication in the appropriate judicial forum.

Writ Petition Seeking Relief:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief from the Customs Authorities' actions, arguing that the Supreme Court proceedings were unrelated to the Customs issue. The Court highlighted that all related issues should be presented before the competent judicial forum for comprehensive adjudication. Ultimately, the Court closed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner's options open for further legal recourse in the appropriate forum.