9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that, the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. He submits that, the Commissioner of Customs did not have the requisite jurisdiction to pass the impugned order since the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations of 2004 are absent. He submits that, Regulations 20(2) requires satisfaction of three conditions for the Commissioner to invoke the same. He emphasises that, the Commissioner must in appropriate cases, where immediate action is necessary, act within 15 days of the receipt of a report from the Investigating Authority. In the present case, he submits that, all such three ingredients are absent. Immediate ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cence of the Customs House was set aside. Learned advocate for the department submits that, the order in original has to be considered as a report of the misdeeds of the petitioner. The show cause notice, which had ultimately culminated in the order in original, cannot be taken as a starting point, as the authorities were yet to decide finally on the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice. The order in original is dated September 29, 2016 and the same was received by the respondent at Kolkata on December 19, 2016. Immediately thereafter the Authorities had invoked Regulation 20(2) of the Regulation of 2004 and had issued a temporary order of suspension. The petitioner was awarded an opportunity of hearing. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on December 19, 2016. It had proceeded under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulation of 2004 immediately thereafter. No material has been produced before the Court to suggest that, the initial order of suspension under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulation of 2004 was not initiated within the stipulated period of 15 days on receipt of the order in original. The contention of the petitioner that the order in original cannot be considered as a report of the investigating authority is without any basis. The order in original has resulted from a show cause notice issued on the basis of an intelligence report. Regulation 20(2) does not say that, apart from an intelligence report, the authorities cannot rely upon something more final such as an order in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to sustain his case on the basis of the parameters available for the enquiry by the Writ Court. An quasi judicial order can be set aside if it is found to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, unreasoned, perverse, without jurisdiction or to be in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. In the present case, none of those grounds are substantiated. The order has not been demonstrated to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or unreasoned or perverse. The Authorities are within their jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. No right of the petitioner, for less a fundamental right, has been established to be violated by the order impugned. In such circumstances, I find no merit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
