9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had attempted to export the same, which do not match the description and/or declaration given before the Customs Authorities in the Shipping Bills submitted by it (Petitioner). Such examination would show that the Petitioner had deliberately declared and over-invoiced the said goods and had attempted to export the same illegally under a claim of drawback out of India in contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, making the same (goods) liable to confiscation thereunder. It is neither open to the Petitioner to take back the goods which were attempted to be exported before allowing the Applicant to examine the same under the aforesaid provisions. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated December 19, 1995 had given liberty to "the parties to take appropriate directions from the Trial Court where the Writ Petition is pending and the Trial Court will pass such order as it may deem proper without being influenced by any order or direction contained in the impugned order." Hence the instant application by the Applicant for being added as a party to the instant Writ Proceedings, since he is not only a proper party but a necessary party herein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it/Proceedings may be added as a Party. 8.In the leading English Case of Moser v. Marse, (1892) 1 C.H. 487 : 62 LT 570, Lindly L.J. has held that a party who is not directly interested in the issues between the Plaintiff and the defendant but is only indirectly or commercially affected cannot be added as a defendant because the Court has no jurisdiction under the relevant Rule to bring him on record even as a proper party. The position is no different under the Indian Law. The Supreme Court had laid down in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 886 that "in a Suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest, as distinct from a commercial interest in the subject matter of the litigation." The Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 S.C. 786 has subsequently explained the meaning of a `necessary' or `proper' party as follows :- "A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper officer is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e export goods, and whether the Customs Authorities have any jurisdiction to detain the same any further, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Writ Petition does not appear to contain any allegation against the Department of Revenue Intelligence (for short D.R.I.). No issue has either been raised therein requiring presence of the D.R.I. in the Proceedings. Nor, has any relief been sought for against them. Having regard to the nature and scope of the Writ Application and the reliefs sought for therein, the D.R.I. does not seem to be either a proper party or a necessary party in the instant proceedings, having no direct or legal interest in the subject matter thereof. It would be pertinent to note in this context that the Applicant has also prayed for being allowed to inspect and examine the goods attempted to be exported by the Writ Petitioner and be permitted to proceed in accordance with law, if the proper Officer is satisfied that the provisions of the aforesaid Act have been violated or infringed upon, in terms of prayers (b) and (c) thereto, for the reasons stated therein. The Applicant clearly appears to have prayed for being added as a Party-Respondent herein for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... independently claim to be added as a Party-Respondent herein for completely and effectually adjudicating the issues raised in the writ application ! The Applicant, an Assistant Director, is again one of the numerous Officers of the D.R.I., who claims to be personally added as a Party-Respondent herein. He is not the Head of the Department of the Office of the D.R.I. The Director has neither prayed for being added as a Party-Respondent herein. There is nothing either on record to show that the Applicant has been authorised by the Director to apply for being added as a Party-Respondent herein. It is, therefore, difficult to find under what authority the applicant claims to be added as a Party-Respondent herein! His personal interest or involvement or concern in the matter is neither apparent from the records. There is nothing either on record to show that the instant writ application, in view of the nature and scope thereof, cannot be effectually and completely adjudicated upon in the absence of the Applicant. He could hardly, therefore, be held to be either a proper party or a necessary party in the instant Writ Proceedings. 15.It had sadly been contended by the Applicant that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. C.S. Patel, (1971) 3 S.C.C. 821 where the Writ Petitioner had challenged the order of the State Government acquiring a property for the benefit of the Muni- cipal Corporation. The order of acquisition was set aside without passing any order against the Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court has held therein that although the property in question was sought to be acquired by the State Government for use by the Municipal Corporation, but since no relief was claimed against the Municipal Corporation, it could not be aggrieved by the order, and the appeal by the Municipal Corporation was not thus maintainable. 17.In view of the discussions above and in view of the fact that the Court's earlier order dated 10th December, 1995 still stands, not having been interfered with either by the Division Bench of this Court in appeal, nor by the Supreme Court, the application of the Applicant for being added as a Party Respondent herein could neither be entertained. The aforesaid order of this Court dated 10th December, 1995 not having been interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court on appeal, or by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
