TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner." 2. The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the business of exporting honey and is also a recognized export house. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner had exported 120 containers of honey without the certificate of export issued by the Export Inspection Agency-respondent No. 1 (hereafter also referred to as the "EIA"). It has been further alleged that such export was in violation of the Export of Honey (Quality Control, Inspection and Monitoring) Rules, 2002 (hereafter the "Rules"). 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have withheld issuance of inspection certificates in respect of export consignments of honey, which are pending clearance. 4. The principal question ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whereby the Rules had been notified and further assured that it would take due care in the future. At the material time, a consignment of six containers was pending inspection by the EIA and the petitioner requested that the same be cleared. 5.4 The petitioner made several representations to the EIA for certification of its pending consignments. However, the EIA failed and neglected to provide the necessary certificates. The correspondence between the parties indicates that the EIA has been insisting that the petitioner provide the necessary details with respect to the exports of honey, which were made without certification. 5.5 Finally, the petitioner received a letter dated 11-7-2014 which read as under :- "Sir, Ple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... - (2013) 5 SCC 427 and submitted that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was a discretionary remedy and ought not to be exercised in favour of the petitioner who had, admittedly, exported goods in violation of the Rules. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in withholding certificates was without authority of law. He pointed out that the only reason for withholding the certificates was the allegation regarding contravention of the Rules in respect of the consignments exported by the petitioner in the past. He contended that inspection certificates could not be withheld with respect to the current consignments, on that ground. 9. The Parliament e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of the EIA. It is doubtful whether the EIA can recover inspection fee in respect of past consignments which have admittedly not been inspected by the EIA. However, in the event such fees are payable, it would be upon the EIA to recover the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to any proposed action. The EIA has to function within four corners of the statute and it is not open for the EIA to act arbitrarily, whimsically or contrary to the provisions of law. The EIA has the statutory duty to inspect and issue certificates, it cannot refuse to discharge its function. 12. In the present case, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 could not point out any provision in law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Investment Corporation (supra) had, inter alia, held that : "The primary purpose of the writ is to protect and establish rights, and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justitiae) and its grant or refusal is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or establish a legal right but, to enforce one that stood already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter alia, the facts of the case, the exige....