9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. l, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the order is passed by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Government is bound by the said order and cannot challenge its own order by filing the writ petition. Similarly, the petitioners being the subordinate officers of the Central Government, are not legally entitled to challenge the order passed by the Central Government and, therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the same should be dismissed on this preliminary issue alone. In order to substantiate these contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Union of India and another, repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs, Calcutta and others, reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1392 (S.C.), as well as in the case of State of Qrissa v. Union of India and another reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 154. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the provisions of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as the decisions relied on and cited by both the counsel. It is no doubt true that a simpliciter policy decision or any other decision taken by the Central Government in its executive/administrative capacity would be a decision binding on the Central Government as well as the authorities subordinate to the Central Government. However, so far as the powers exercised by the Joint Secretary, Government of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for respondent No. l is concerned, in Para 12 of its judgment, the Apex Court has observed thus : "In this connection, it is necessary to note that in the first place, the State Government is not merely an authority subordinate to the Central Government which would, undoubtedly, be bound by the revisional orders of the superior authority. It is also the owner of the mines and minerals in question. If it is directed to issue to a mining lease in favour of any party, it has locus standi to challenge that order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." The above-referred observations of the Apex Court, in our view, has no positive bearing in view of the facts and circumstances as well as the issue involved in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn earlier decision, although if has not come to the Court, but has been brought before us as respondent. It is an established principle that the State, as a petitioner cannot challenge the validity of its own order as it is governed by general principle of estoppel, and if it is debarred from doing so, as a petitioner, the same principle would apply preventing the State from attacking its own decision even if it has come to the Court as a respondent." There is no quarrel about the observations made by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove, since the Government itself is not entitled to challenge its policy decision. However, in the instant case, we have already observed hereinabove that the revisional authority, while exercising revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
