9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted the same to the Port Trust Authorities with a request to refund the amount already deposited by them. The request was turned down by the Deputy Docks Manager (Refunds) by his order dated 13th June, 1989. The ground for rejection was that the request for waiver on the strength of the detention certificate produced by the petitioners could not be acceded to under the existing rules. The petitioners made a further representation to the Deputy Docks Manager Refunds who by his order dated 10th August, 1989 upheld the rejection of the claim of the petitioners. The operative portion of the above order is as follows : "It is observed from the Public Notice dated 29-7-1985 that the reason "due to Bona fide Operation of the Customs formal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the authorities under the Port Trust Act were not aware of the relevant rules, circulars or public notifications which operated in the field. The learned Counsel wanted to ascertain the position from his clients. The case was again adjourned and it has come up today. The learned Counsel fairly submits that the Public Notice by which the earlier Public Notice dated 29-7-1985 was modified does in fact exist and rejection was made in ignorance thereof. It is highly regrettable that senior officers holding responsible posts in important departments of the Government of India do not care even to keep track of the very few enactments, rules or notifications which directly govern their activities and act in violation thereof. It is this act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and acted in disregard thereof their action itself should be taken seriously and they should not be allowed to raise such objection at this juncture. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the public notice No. 13 of 1987 dated 5-2-1987 which has modified the earlier Public Notice No. III, dated 29-7-1985 clearly provides for issue of detention certificates by the Assistant Collector i/c Apprg. Groups. I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is evident that the petitioners were never apprised of fresh guidelines and even those who were administering were not aware of them. As such, in the fitness of things, it is not proper for them to raise such objections at this juncture. The learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
