9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Collector), issued a show cause notice (exhibit B) to the petitioners and two other persons called Shankar Rao Jadhav and Ananda Rao Shinde of Mysore proposing to confiscate the aforesaid gold for the contraventions of the Act detailed in the respective notices and levy personal penalties also. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioners filed their detailed objections denying any contravention, justifying the actions proposed therein. On an examination of the material placed before him and the objections urged, the Collector by his order dated 3rd May, 1976 (exhibit C), made an order against the petitioners in these terms : "In view of the foregoing findings, I pass the following order : One pellet of gold with foreign markings which is clearly liable to confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as discussed above having already been confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962 by an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mysore, earlier vide C. No. VIII/10/16/73 - Customs, dated 31st May, 1974 ; I do not pass an order of confiscation in relation to the said gold unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the parties concerned de novo." This order made by the Administrator was not an order of remand but only reserved liberty to the Collector to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioners and Anand Rao Shinde, if he so decided. But, for reasons with which we are not concerned, the Collector neither initiated fresh proceedings against the petitioners and Ananda Rao Shinde nor returned the gold to any of them. 5. On 18th July, 1979, petitioner No. 1 moved this court in Writ Petition No. 11540 of 1979, under article 226 of the Constitution impleading the Collector and the Superintendent as party respondents to the writ petition seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus to return the gold to him on the ground that on the expiry of 6 months from the date of the order of the Administrator he was entitled for its return. 6. In answer to the said claim of the petitioner, the respondents in that case stated that the Union Government - respondent No. 3 - had initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the petitioner and had issued a show cause notice to him on 10th December, 1979 (annexure E), and therefore, he was not entitled for the mandamus claimed by him. On that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Counsel, appearing for the respondents, has urged that the Government acting on the information imparted by the Collector does not commit any illegality and the grounds stated in its show cause notice were not new grounds justifying this Court's interference even before the proceedings are completed by the Government. 14. Section 82(2) of the Act empowers the Central Government to suo motu call for the records and revise the decision or order made on appeal to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order and pass such order thereon as it may think fit. Sub-section (3) of Section 82 sets out the manner and method of dealing a suo motu revision and the period within which the proceeding should be initiated by the Government. 15. The manner and method and the period within which the power should be exercised, do not touch on the power of the Government to suo motu revise the decision or order made on appeal, if all or any one of the circumstances provided by Section 82(2) of the Act exist. 16. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the Government had proposed to revise the order beyond the period of limitation provided by the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngar, J., in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 S.C. 72. With this brief background of the meaning of the term "legal mala fides" it is necessary to examine whether there is any merit in the grounds urged by the petitioners. 22. In the return, as also at the hearing it was not disputed before me that after the Administrator made his order the Collector wrote to the Government and that on receipt of such letter, after obtaining the records and examining them, the Government has issued the show cause notice to the petitioners. 23. The Act or any other law does not prevent the Collector from writing to the Government to which he is subordinate and the Government getting the records, examining them and issuing a show cause notice. 24. The suo motu power of revision conferred by Section 82(2) of the Act can be exercised by the Government on the information imparted by the Collector or by any other person or on the basis of any information that comes to its own notice in any manner. On any legal principle, it is difficult to hold that because of this fact, the notice issued suffers from legal mala fides. 25. The plea of the petitioners that the Government has suo motu sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Government, was ill-conceived. In support of his contention Sri Bhat has strongly relied on the rulings of the Supreme Court in Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, AIR 1957 S.C. 540 and Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 S.C. 1. 31. If petitioner No. 1 is right in his contention on merits then he has a civil and legal right for the return of gold, is not rightly disputed by Sri Bhat and that position is also concluded by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Charan Das Malhotra's case, AIR 1972 S.C. 689. But, the question is whether there is merit in the contention of the petitioners. 32. Earlier, I have set out the operative portion of the order made by the Administrator and its true legal effect. The Administrator did not remand the case to the Collector for a fresh adjudication. But, he only reserved liberty to the Collector to initiate fresh proceedings, if he so decided. 33. The Act was enacted to provide, in the economic and financial interests of the community for the control of the production 'manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of, and business in, gold ornaments and articles of gold and for matters connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation are two inseparable parts. "They move in a body if they move at all" : vide Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 S.C. 661 at 733. The explanation should be read so as to harmonise with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section. It should not be so construed as to widen the ambit of the section, vide State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR 1957 S.C. 389 at 393. Bearing in mind all these principles, it is necessary to ascertain the true scope of the explanation to the second proviso to Section 79 of the Act. 37. In the context and on the application of the above principles the explanation to the second proviso cannot be construed as an independent provision. But, the same has to be so construed as to harmonise with and clear up the ambiguity, if any, of the second proviso only. When so construed, the explanation applies to a case of remand and a fresh adjudication to be made thereto and not to all cases as urged by Sri Kumar. 38. The order made by the Administrator was not one of remand and the explanation to the second proviso has no application to sustain the claim of petitioner No. 1 for return of the gold. 39. The ratio in Charan Das Malhotra's case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revisional proceedings are completed by the Government cannot be upheld. Even on facts also, it is hazardous to return the gold to petitioner No. 1 before the proceedings are completed by the Government. For all these reasons, I see no merit in this contention of Sri Kumar and I reject the same. 46. On the above discussion, it follows that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. But, in view of the order of stay granted by this Court, the petitioners have not filed their objections to the show cause notice. In this view, it is necessary for this Court to grant a reasonable time to the petitioners to file their objections before the Government and I consider it proper to grant at least one month's time from this day for the said purpose. 47. In the light of my above discussion, I hold that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule issued in the case. But, the petitioners are granted one month's time from this day for filing their objections to the show cause notices before the Government. 48. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. 49. Let copies of this order, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
