High Court rules on writ petition challenging goods clearance order, emphasizing non-retrospective circular. Preliminary objection rejected, appeals allowed.

The High Court partly allowed the writ petition challenging the order directing clearance of goods, emphasizing non-retrospective applicability of a circular. A preliminary objection on non-compliance with court orders was rejected, allowing appeals to proceed. The jurisdiction of the writ petition was upheld, clarifying the circular's nature. The interpretation of the circular favored allowing appeals on merit. Locus standi of an intervenor was considered, and notices were issued for further proceedings. Contempt proceedings were balanced with granting interim relief to stay the order's operation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.9169/2014.
2. Preliminary objection raised regarding compliance with court orders.
3. Jurisdiction of the writ petition filed at Indore Bench of M.P. High Court.
4. Interpretation of circular dated 7.11.2014 regarding import of goods.
5. Locus standi of intervenor to challenge the writ court's order.
6. Consideration of contempt proceedings and grant of interim relief.

Analysis:

1. The High Court heard intra court appeals challenging the order dated 30.9.2015 in W.P.No.9169/2014, where the writ court directed the clearance of goods covered by a commercial invoice dated 4.9.2014 and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars at the port of Chennai. The court partly allowed the writ petition based on the non-retrospective applicability of a circular dated 07.11.2014 to the petitioner's consignment, emphasizing the need for compliance with the law.

2. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the non-compliance with court orders by the respondent, leading to a contempt petition. The respondent argued that until the contempt is purged, the appellants have no right of audience. However, the court rejected this objection, emphasizing the importance of enforcing the rule of law while allowing the appeals to be heard on merit.

3. The jurisdiction of the writ petition filed at the Indore Bench of M.P. High Court was questioned, contending that no cause of action arose for filing the petition. The respondent argued that the writ court misinterpreted a judgment of the Bombay High Court, allowing the writ petition based on the clarificatory nature of the circular dated 7.11.2014.

4. The interpretation of the circular dated 7.11.2014 regarding the import of goods was crucial in the case. The respondent argued that the circular did not prohibit the import of goods and was clarificatory in nature, operating from the date of import. The court considered the respondent's submissions and allowed the appeals to proceed on merit.

5. The locus standi of the intervenor to challenge the writ court's order was questioned, citing a decision of the Apex Court. The court considered this argument along with other submissions and issued notices to the respondents for further proceedings.

6. Contempt proceedings and the grant of interim relief were also discussed, with the court emphasizing the need to balance enforcement of court orders with the right to challenge orders on merit. Interim relief was granted to stay the operation of the impugned order until the next hearing date, considering the duration the goods had been lying at Chennai Air Port.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the High Court, addressing the arguments presented by the parties and the court's decisions on each issue.

---