9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer, he is also active in spear-heading the movement against the highhanded actions of the officials of the Collectorate of Central Excise, Cochin. The officials have been on a rampage with raids, searches and seizures and harassment against small scale industrialists which has rendered it impossible for such industries to function. The motivation behind all this is the scheme of award f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Ext. P 31 is dated 29th March, 1988. Petitioner has submitted its explanation in relation thereto. The adjudication proceedings are yet to go on. The adjudication has to be by the first respondent. Though Shri S. Parameswaran, Counsel for the petitioner put forward his contentions about mala fides of the entire department and the various other illegalities raised relating to seizure and otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed interpolation require enquiry with reference to the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case. Such a detailed enquiry is possible only before the first respondent, at which the petitioner will necessarily have their opportunities to put forward their case and to lead evidence. An enquiry into these aspects of the matter is not possible in these proceedings under Article 226 or based on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne in the petitioner's case by way of granting rewards or otherwise, I do not find any cause of action for the petitioner to question the scheme at this stage. In any case, the adjudicatory authority namely the first respondent, has necessarily to perform his statutory duty of adjudication. So long as that is not tainted by any action on his part by way of making rewards to his subordinates, I do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent. It is not as if the petitioner is on a fortiori case where the facts slated at once lead to an inference of mala fides or lack of jurisdiction or such like grounds. 8. Therefore, I decline to entertain this original petition. I leave open the various questions raised by the petitioner for being agitated before the first respondent. The Original Petition is dismissed in limin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
