9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Boards of Excise and Customs states that the petitioners are unnecessarily keeping this petition pending and an official of the respondent no.3 travels from Poonch in Jammu & Kashmir on each date of hearing to give instructions in the matter. 4. In my view, the petitions cannot be kept pending in this manner and especially on the ground urged. The petitioners ought not to have briefed a senior counsel who was not available for today. The counsel for the petitioners has been given an opportunity to argue but he has not availed of the same. With the assistance of the counsel for the respondent no.3 and the counsel for the respondents no.1&2 Union of India and Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, the records have been perused and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grown in Pakistan but Californian Almonds. Accordingly, claiming the reliefs aforesaid, this petition has been filed. 7. The respondent no.3 Chairman Central Board of Excise & Customs in its counter affidavit has pleaded that, (i) the Government of India in consultation with the Government of Pakistan decided to have cross LoC trade between two parts of Jammu & Kashmir without levy of duty on goods to be traded; (ii) Standard Operating Practices (SOP) for cross LoC trade were issued; (iii) no case has come to notice as yet of the said trade having been hijacked by unscrupulous elements; (iv) trade of Almonds is being allowed as per serial no.10 (Dry Fruits including walnuts) of Appendix-B to SOP; and, (v) Almonds are grown in and produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of law does not per se invalidate a legislation and that it must be presumed, unless contrary is proved that administration and application of a particular law would be done not with an evil eye and unequal hand (as reiterated in Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 281) can be applied to executive policies also. Supreme Court, in In Re: Natural Resources Allocation (2012) 10 SCC 1 held that a potential for abuse of methods other than auction for allocation of natural resources cannot be the basis for striking down the same as ultra vires the constitution. It was held that it is the actual abuse itself which must be brought before the Court for being tested on the anvil of constitutional provisions. 11. There is thus no m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
