9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olicy is contrary to the provisions of statutory rules or in violation of provisions of the Constitution. Unless the same is established, the said policy decision must be left to the Government to decide as to which policy should be adopted. In the case of KAILASH MEGHWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [ 1982 (11) TMI 180 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] , the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan has held that the establishment of circle office of PHED or its shifting from one district to another is neither a matter of prima facie judicial, nor legislature domain and none is concerned in such matters because it is neither legislative nor judicial. As executive or administrative decision simpliciter cannot be put to judicial review . With regard to the locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the shifting of the Chief Commissioner s Office from Shillong to Guwahati, this aspect need not be considered in view of the discussions made herein above on other issues. However, with regard to dislocation of the petitioners and other staff working in the Chief Commissioner s Office, on the basis of the submissions advanced by the respondents, it is directed that an option shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with the proposal approved by the competent authority and Finance Ministry. He further submits that in the absence of any proposal supporting the decision of the respondent, the respondents could not have issued the impugned Notification dated 09.06.2017 and the impugned Circular dated 20.02.2019, directing for shifting of the Chief Commissioner Office from Shillong to Guwahati. 4) He further submits that there is no order/decision by the respondent authority to close down the office of the Chief Commissioner Office, Shillong and neither is there any order of merger and as such in the absence of any such decision, the respondents could not have directed shifting of the Chief Commissioner Office from Shillong to Guwahati. Learned counsel contends that the Chief Commissioner s Office, Shillong was established vide an Administrative Order dated 24.01.2003 and the same was done pursuant to the Notification dated 20.12.2002. In this connection, he contends, that the impugned Notification dated 09.06.2017 (Annexure-9 of the writ petition) even while superseding the earlier Notifications in this regard, had specifically protected the things done under the earlier Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and instead are the final proposal/policy decision approved by the Finance Department and the competent authority and as such the impugned notification dated 09.06.2017, being not in accordance with the same is liable to be interfered with by this Hon ble Court. Further, to the contention of the respondents that the Audit Office, Shillong had already been shifted to Guwahati, he submits that there exists no proposal/circular to this effect and nor there is any document on record to substantiate the same, as such the contention of the respondents are without any substance and devoid of merit. Besides, learned counsel submits, at no point of time any option was accorded to the employees/petitioners vis-a-vis the shifting of the office from Shillong to Guwahati as alleged by the respondents and there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. 9) He concludes by submitting that the impugned notification dated 09.06.2017 as well as the impugned Circular dated 20.02.2019 being capricious, untenable and arbitrary, cannot be sustained in law and as such is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10) Dr. N. Mozika, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S.A. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned senior counsel reiterates the submission that the same being a policy decision of the Government of India it cannot be subjected to judicial review. 12) With regard to the contention of the petitioners that the shifting was sought to be done in the absence of any order/notification from the Government, the learned senior counsel submits that the Notification No. 14/2002-CE (N.T) dated 08.03.2002 specified the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioners and Commissioners and in the said Notification, Guwahati was specified as the Chief Commissioner which had jurisdiction over Guwahati and Shillong. The aforesaid Notification was thereafter amended vide Notification No. 41/2002-Central Excise (N.T) dated 20.12.2002 wherein Guwahati was substituted by Shillong having jurisdiction over Dibrugarh and Shillong. The Notification No. 14/2002-CE (N.T) dated 08.03.2002 was then superseded by the Notification No. 27/2014-Central Excise (N.T) dated 16.09.2014 wherein the Chief Commissioner s Office, Shillong has been vested jurisdiction over Shillong, Dibrugarh and Guwahati (Annexure-2 of the writ petition). The said Notification No. 27/2014-Central Excise (N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. b) Notification No. 82/2017-Cus (N.T) dated 24.08.2017 issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962. c) Notification No. 12/2017-CE (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 and No. 13/2017-CE (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 issued under Section 2 of the Central Excise act, 1944. Learned senior counsel submits that these separate Notifications, were issued under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962, providing for Chief Commissioner at Guwahati who is the Chief Commissioner under the CGST Act, IGST Act, Central Excise Act and Customs Act. The petitioners have challenged only the Notification No. 13/2017-CE (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 issued under Central Excise Act. The petitioners have not challenged the Notifications issued under the Customs Act, CGST Act and IGST Act. 15. The learned counsel also submits that staff working in the Chief Commissioner s Office were given the option to opt for Guwahati or to be accommodated in other GST and Customs Offices in Shillong, as such there is no threat of forced dislocation of the staff from Shillong, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the State Government to locate the Mandal Headquarter at a particular place. The learned counsel has also placed reliance in the case of Union of India vs. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta Kannadadigara Ors. reported in (2002) 10 SCC. (at Para 5), and in the case of Kailash Meghwal Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Ors. reported in (1982) SCC Online Raj 57,(at para 14). 18. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions and also have examined the materials on record. 19. The main contentions of the writ petitioners as can be seen from the pleadings and submissions is that the order of shifting of the Chief Commissioner s Office from Shillong to Guwahati is arbitrary, irrational and devoid of any reasonable justification and the decision arrived at by the respondents is in violation of the Excise Rules. The respondents per contra, however have first questioned as to whether the decision to shift the Office being a policy decision in public interest, would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To the contention of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs to be integrated in Guwahati. It is to be noted also that the petitioners have not challenged the other Notifications, but have only challenged the Notifications issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The other separate Notifications providing for Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs are quoted herein below: a) Notification No. 2/2017 (CE) dated 19.06.2017 issued under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Section 3 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. b) Notification No. 82/2017-Cus (N.T) dated 24.08.2017 issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962. c) Notification No. 12/2017-CE (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 and No. 13/2017-CE (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 issued under Section 2 of the Central Excise act, 1944. 21. From the discussions above, it can also be discerned that the decision to shift the Chief Commissioner s Office from Shillong to Guwahati flows from the Notification No. 13/2007-(Central Excise-NT) and not from the Circular No. C. No. II (39)04/ET/CCO/SH/2019 dated 20.02.2019 issued by the Joint Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hatanegala Okkuta Kannadadigara Ors: (2002) 10 SCC 226 at Para 5 is quoted herein below: - 5. We do not find any basis for the High Court coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Union Cabinet was vitiated on account of legal mala fides. Merely because an administrative decision has been taken to locate the headquarters at Bangalore, which decision is subsequently altered by the same authority, namely, the Union Cabinet, cannot lead one to the conclusion that there has been legal mala fides. Why the headquarters should be at Hubli and not at Bangalore, is not for the court to decide. There are various factors which have to be taken into consideration when a decision like this has to be arrived at. Assuming that the decision so taken is a political one, it cannot possibly give rise to a challenge on the ground of legal mala fides. A political decision, if taken by a competent authority in accordance with law, cannot per se be regarded as mala fide. In any case, there is nothing on the record to show that the present decision was motivated by political consideration. The observation of the High Court that there has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-s. (5) of s. 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place 'X' rather than place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners . 28. With regard to the locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the shifting of the Chief Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
