9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary, 1979 did not record his reasons for rejecting the application of the present appellant for adding him as a respondent in the aforesaid Rule. There is some force in the submission of Mr. H. Jagtiani, learned Advocate for the appellant, that the learned Single Judge ought to have recorded his reasons, however, brief they may be, for not entertaining the appellant's said prayer for addition of parties. We propose to state the reasons why, in our view, the appellant is not entitled to be joined as a respondent in the said Civil Rule. 3. The appellant in his application for addition of party filed in Civil Rule No. 57(w) of 1979 claimed that he is registered as small-scale industrial unit in Maharashtra. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Metallised Polyester Film and Metallic Yarn from Metallised Polyester Film. The product of the applicant is used mainly in the textile industries, including the handloom textile industries. He has further alleged in his said application that the respondent No. 1 herein M/s. Golden Industries Pvt. Ltd. had grossly under-valued the price of Metallised Polyester Film in the bill of entries made out and submitted on behalf of the impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicate upon the controversy. The appellant cannot claim that he ought to have been joined as a petitioner or respondent in the Civil Rule obtained by the respondent No. 1 herein. He has not also established that without his presence the question involved in the said Civil Rule cannot be completely decided (in this connection see Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure, Vol. I, Page 626). The appellant has not proprietary or even any other direct interest. He claims a mere commercial interest. 6. In their petition under Article 226 of the Constitution M/s. Golden Polyester Industries Pvt. Ltd. has prayed inter alia for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement, Group I and the Union of India to release the goods imported by the said petitioner and for further commanding the said respondents to grant certificate for exemption of wharfage and/or demurrage in respect of the said imported goods. Therefore, the principal point in the said Civil Rule is whether or not the respondents had acted illegally and in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act by not releasing the goods. We find that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Jagtiani that the appellant could have maintained an independent writ petition in respect of withholding of release order by the Customs Authorities. Prima facie, he has no cause of action against the Customs Authorities. There appears to be some confusion about the real question in controversy in the said Civil Rule. The petitioner in the Civil Rule has challenged the authority of the respondents of the Civil Rule to withhold the release orders of the imported goods claimed by the petitioner. We have already observed that the present appellant has not alleged that he has any grievance against the Customs Authorities. In fact, his purporting to support the allegations of the Customs Authorities that the goods imported by the petitioner of the Civil Rule had been under-valued and their real value was much higher. In the trial court the Customs Authorities had opposed the prayer of the petitioner for modification of interim orders. Mr. Mookerjee, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1, has placed before us the observations of the Supreme Court in The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and Others v. Teekappa Gowda Bros. and Others, AIR 1971 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al than the statutory procedure. It is settled law that a ratepayer or any other person affected can impugn a void Valuation List by filing a writ petition. 9. The decision in Attorney General v. Independent Broadcasting Authority, 1973 (1) QB 629, dealt with the question whether an action by a private citizen would lie when the Attorney General had refused to apply for injunction by way of a relator action. In our view, same has no relevance for considering whether or not a private person should be allowed to intervene in a writ proceeding challenging adjudication by the Customs Authorities in respect of goods imported by another person and in which the intervener claims no proprietary interest. 10. The decision in Regina v. Greater London Council, 1976 (1) WR 550, again is not germane. In the said case the appellant residing within the area of the Greater London Council applied for an order of Prohibition to issue against the Council to prevent them, inter alia, from exercising their censorship powers over the public exhibition of cinematograph films in accordance with tests of obscenity which were bad in law, secondly, from acting ultra vires in delegating their censorship p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject-matter thereof. In this connection, reference was made to the earlier Supreme Court decision in Calcutta Gas Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044. The appellant in Gadde Venkateswar Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Ors. (supra) as the representative of a village had purported to file the application under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia challenging the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reviewing its earlier order by which a resolution of a Panchayat Samity regarding establishment of a health centre had been set aside. The Council for the State of Andhra Pradesh had raised a preliminary objection about the locus standi of the appellant to file the writ petition and in the context of these facts the aforesaid observation in paragraph 8 of the judgment in Gadde Venkateswar's case (supra) were made. 12. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has rightly submitted that the question of locus standi to file a writ petition is always considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of each particular case the act of the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
