TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Entry No. 01210/16/2013 dated 28.01.2013 weighing 15.470 MT which have been illegally and unauthorizedly withheld by the Respondents despite the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in respect of the said goods for the charge of its illegal import has been dropped by the Adjudicating authority and there is a specific direction for release of the seized goods vide order dated 28.03.2013." (underlining for emphasis) 3. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid underlined prayer in this writ application lie in a very narrow compass. It is the case of the petitioners that they had imported 15.470 MT of processed betel nuts from Bangladesh through Land Customs Station, Petrapole under a valid bill of entry dated 28.01.2013. It is also claimed that upon clearance of payment of the prescribed amount of import duty, the goods imported by the petitioners were examined and after assessment and clearance of the goods, they were loaded in West Bengal registered vehicles and were brought to a place Bangaon by these trucks from where the goods were transferred/loaded to the trucks provided by the Transporter M/s SRC India Movers enroute to their business premises at New Delhi. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le was found to be adulterated and unsafe as per the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006. 7. According to the petitioners, they were subjected to confiscation proceedings in terms of Section 111 read with Section 115 of the Act and they were called upon to file their show cause as to why 190 bags of betel nuts of Bangladesh weighing 15470 Kg. (15.470 quintals) valued at Rs. 14,69,650/- as also the truck in question valued at Rs. 12,00,000/- should not be confiscated under Section 115 of the Act and penalty in terms of Section 112 and 116 of the Act be not imposed upon them. The petitioners thereafter had filed their show cause reply dated 8.5.2013 to the show cause notice dated 08.04.2013 in which they had categorically denied the allegation made in the show cause notice and had gone to explain that the goods in question were legally imported with the valid documents as also after due custom clearance and were being transshipped to its destination at Delhi. 8. It is the further case of the petitioners that during pendency of the confiscation proceedings pending before the Additional Commissioner (Adjn.) Customs, Patna, they had again sent a notice dated 12.09.2013 to the Additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication on 05.08.2014. 11. As would be found from the prayer of the petitioners already quoted above their main grievance, on the date of filing of the writ application i.e. 05.08.2014, was that despite an order of provisional release passed by the competent authority of the Custom Department dated 28.03.2013 followed by the final order dated 29.11.2013 dropping the confiscation proceedings, its seized articles (split betel nuts) on 16.02.1993, were not released. This Court, thus, considering the urgency of the matter, by its order dated 06.08.2014, had directed the learned counsel for the Custom Department to take instructions and file counter affidavit disclosing reasons for not releasing the seized articles within next four days so that the case could be heard on 11.8.2014. 12. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 06.08.2014 though the case could not be taken up on 11.08.2014, but then, on 22.08.2014, a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the authorities of the Custom Department wherein an order of release dated 09.08.2014 had been enclosed directing for the provisional release of the split betel nuts of the petitioners and a plea was taken in suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the petitioners was found adulterated and thus, created a doubt with regard to test report of Export Inspection Agency, Kolkata dated 28.01.2013, on the basis of which, the petitioners were carrying the betel nuts through the road by a truck which was intercepted and had led to seizure of the goods on 17.02.2013. On this basis, it was claimed by the Custom Department that the seized betel nuts were not those for which the petitioners had obtained the test report of Export Inspection Agency, Kolkata dated 28.01.2013. 14. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the departmental appeal before the Commissioners (Appeal) against the final order of Adjudication dated 29.11.2013 was still pending. What is actually relevant in this regard is that in para-5 of the counter affidavit the authorities of the Custom Department had accepted that the Additional Commissioner (Adjn.), Customs Hqrs., Patna, vide order dated 28.03.2013, had directed for release of the seized goods in favour of the petitioners, but as a test report of the said betel nuts dated 3.4.2013 was received from the C.F.L., Raxaul stating that the sample of betel nuts does not conform to the standard laid d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2263/68, 1st Floor, Room No. 11 Gali Raghunandan, Naya Bazaar, Delhi-110006 Sir, Sub: Release of Bank guarantee No. 1BG54159 and surety Bond dated 09.08.2014 for Rs. 9,28,200/-, and Rs. 14,69,650/- respectively against release order dated 08.08.2014 issued from file No. VIII (10) 10-Cus/P/H/Seiz12-13-reg Please refer to your letter dated 12.09.2014 on the captioned subject. In this regard, it is to intimate that order in Appeal No. 838/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2014 dated 09.09.2014 has been accepted by the Competent authority. Hence, Bank guarantee No. 1BG54159 and surety Bond dated 09.08.2014 for Rs. 9,28,000/- and Rs. 14,69,650/- respectively are being revoked. As these are valuable documents, your are requested to collect them personally form this officer on any working day as per your convenience and kindly intimate the date of your visit to this office. Your's faithfully Assistant Commissioner (Prev) Customs (P) Hqrs, Patna Ms. Archana Meenakshi, Sr. Standing Counsel, She is requested to place the documents before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna in proof to the letter was returned back with postal remark "Lock Closed" dt. 19.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner only on 9.8.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interregnum period of nearly 1½ years the quality of the goods has virtually deteriorated to such an extent that it cannot be now used in any manner or for any purpose. Though Mrs. Archana Meenakshee, learned Senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Custom Officials, has produced a letter dated 11.11.2014, which is kept on records, this Court would direct the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to file an affidavit giving explanation as to why it had taken almost 1½ years to act upon the order of the provisional release and if he finds that some officials of the Department are responsible for such delay he must inform this court as to what action has been or would be taken against them for their obvious laches in performance of official duties. Put up this case on next Tuesday i.e. 9.12.2014 under the same heading when the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) shall also remain personally present. 19. Pursuant to the aforementioned order dated 02.12.2014, the Commissioner, Customs had filed a supplementary counter affidavit, relevant portion whereof re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner was adjudicated vide order in original issued on 29.11.2013, whereby the Adjudicating Authority dropped the proceedings initiated vide the show cause notice dated 08.04.2013 which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter C.No. VIII(10) 12-CUS/ADC/Hqrs/2013/2105-06 dated 29.11.2013. 12. That it is further submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2013 Department filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 25.03.2014. 13. That it is further submitted that since the goods were found adulterated Department was not in position to release the goods in terms of the Instruction issued vide F.No. 450/100/2006- Cus. IV dated 12th October, 2006 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs that the seized goods cannot be released when goods found adulterated as per the Chemical examination report under PFA Act, 1954 by the notified laboratory. 14. That it is further submitted that the petitioner on 08.08.2014 submitted the Bond with requisite bank guarantee and subsequently the goods were handed over to the petitioner. 15. That it is further submitted that when the matter was decided by Commissioner (Appeals), orders for rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied with the aforementioned explanation in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Customs, an assurance was given by him in person to this Court on 16.12.2014 by filing a second supplementary counter affidavit that he had instituted an inquiry to be conducted by Mr. K.Ramamurti, Additional Commissioner, Customs for fixing responsibility on the concerned officials who had caused abnormal delay in the release of the consignment of the petitioners. Para 15 of the second supplementary counter affidavit in this regard reads as follows: "That an inquiry has been ordered in the matter to ascertain the name of the officers who were in fault, so that disciplinary action may be initiated against them." 23. On 19.12.2014, a 3rd supplementary counter affidavit was filed enclosing the copy of the inquiry report dated 18.12.2014 wherein following conclusions were recorded by Mr. K. Ramamurti, the Additional Commissioner: Conclusion (i) It appears from above that there has been no deliberate attempt not to release the goods. In view of the adulterated nature of the subject goods which is prohibited un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 111 of the Custom Act, had specifically brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Custom that the seized goods were perishable in nature and had to be stored with proper precaution, inasmuch as, any sort of damage caused by improper and long storage could result in reduction of the value of the goods and, as such, the prayer of the petitioner for release of the seized betel nut, which were legally imported by them in India, should be allowed. 26. It appears that on receipt of such application, the competent authority had addressed himself to the issue of provisional release of seized articles of the petitioners and had directed the Assistant Commissioner, Custom by his letter dated 26.3.2013 to furnish relevant documents necessary for considering the request of the petitioners for provisional release of the seized articles. The competent authority in his such letter dated 26.3.2013 had also specifically asked the Assistant Commissioner, Preventive to give specific comments as to whether provisional release of the seized processed betel nut and the vehicle would have any adverse impact on investigation of the case against the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 30. While the report of Food Analyst, Bihar, P.H. Lab, MADA, Dhanbad was being awaited, the Superintendent, Adjudication, in his communication to the Superintendent, Preventive, Custom, had explained the request of the petitioner no.2 for release of the seized betel nut to the petitioners on his undertaking by making the consignment fit for human consumption. The Superintendent, Preventive, Custom was accordingly asked by the Superintendent, Adjudication, Custom, Patna to seek further report from C.F.L. Kolkata Extension Center at Raxaul and Food Analyst, Bihar, P.H. Lab, MADA, Dhanbad as to whether the said betel nuts could be made fit for human consumption by way of fumigation so that the further action for provisional release of the seized betel nuts could be taken. Pursuant thereto, a communication was made to the Officer In-charge of C.F.L., Laxmipur, Raxaul as to whether the said betel nuts could be made fit for human consumption by way of fumigation and such desired information was sought to be furnished on priority basis so that the action could be taken for provisional release of the betel nuts. 31. From the records, it is also borne out that the Officer in-charge ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14. On such application of the petitioner no.2, the sample of the seized betel nut was once again taken on 12.3.2014 and thereafter the authority of the Custom Department on 21.3.2014 had claimed to have sent another reminder to the Food Analyst, Bihar, P.H. Lab, MADA, Dhanbad for submission of the desired report in respect of seized betel nut of the petitioner sent on 7.5.2013. 34. It also transpires from the documents that on 25.3.2014, a decision was taken for filing an appeal against the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Custom dropping the adjudication in the confiscation proceeding. The petitioners who were however desperate to get their seized betel nuts released had once sent a legal notice dated 29.3.2014 asking the Assistant Commissioner, Custom to release betel nuts and in the aforesaid legal notice, it was made clear that the seized betel nuts were in fact to be used for manufacturing of mosquito repellent coils and not for the human consumption and thus the betel nut should be released so as to protect them from perishing. 35. It also appears from the letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Preventive dated 9.4.2014 that the samples of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l i.e. 23.4.2014 he also being instrumental in causing delay in the eventual release of the seized articles of the petitioners could not have been fair and impartial in fixing the responsibility on erring officials of the Custom Department. 39. As a matter of fact this Court is thoroughly disappointed with the conclusions arrived by Mr. K. Ramamurthy in his inquiry report as already quoted above in paragraph no. 23 of this judgment. His all three conclusions is bereft of his awareness of the provisions of the Customs Act, inasmuch as when there was an order of provisional release dated 28.3.2013 in terms of Section 110A of Customs Act in favour of the petitioners, his finding that there was no deliberate attempt not to release the seized articles of the petitioners is absolutely a perverse finding. The help taken by him of the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in no view of the matter could have become a factor after the order of the provisional release dated 28.03.2013 was passed and unless such order was set aside by the higher authority the same had to be essentially acted upon. 40. It is also apparent that Mr. K. Ramamurthy either in ignorance or delibe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This Court in fact is amazed with the approach of Mr. K. Ramamurthy when he describes in his conclusion in the Enquiry Report that there was a bonafide intention on the part of the Custom Department in releasing of the goods because it was awaiting the verification of the sample report for a period over one year. As noted above, the first report of F.S.L. was received on 4.4.2013 and on that basis the officers of Custom Department had set over and virtually overruled the statutory adjudicatory order under section 110A of provisional release of the seized articles of the petitioners dated 28.3.2013. Thereafter the adjudication proceedings got concluded by way of dropping of confiscation proceedings against the petitioners on 29.11.2013 and as noted above, the appeal was not filed till 23.4.2014. Thus, if the sample could be sent again to F.S.L. only in the month of April, 2014 this court fails to understand as to what had prevented the Department in doing so in the interregnum period of one year? This Court, therefore, will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Mr. K. Ramamurthy was also trying to shield not only the other erring officials of the Custom Department but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of release dated 28.3.2013 by the so called order dated 29.4.2013 is to be accepted, that again cannot be justified in law, inasmuch as such a statutory order dated 28.3.2013 on the application of the petitioners dated 6.3.2013 in terms of Section 110A of Custom Act was passed and there is no power of review vested in the authority under any provision of Customs Act. Secondly, if for any reason whatsoever the said order was sought to be allegedly reviewed though no order of such review has been produced before this Court, it was all the more imperative for the authorities to at least give notice to the petitioners and hear them before passing of the alleged order of review. Admittedly that was never done and therefore, this Court cannot accept the defence of the so called review of the provisional order of release dated 28.3.2013 by the same authority who allegedly in the file had passed some order on 29.4.2013. 47. Let it be kept in mind that the order of provisional release of the seized goods passed by the adjudicating authority on 28.03.2013 was also never made subject matter of any appeal by any authority on any ground whatsoever and, therefore, the internal corresponde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been recorded but not a word has been said about the existence of this so called review order dated 29.04.2013 passed in the file, as noted in the report of Mr. K.Ramamurthy. Let it be kept in mind that the adjudicating authority had also taken into account the report of C.F.L. dated 3.4.2013 and had rejected the same while passing his final order. The relevant portion of the final order dated 29.11.2013 dropping the confiscation proceedings against the petitioners, in fact, reads as follows: "It is observed that no documents could be found at the time of interception of seized goods, either in the truck or in the possession of Noticee no.1, who is khalasi of the seized vehicle. It was only on 6.3.2013, when Shri Kalu Ram Kundlia (Noticee No. 3) appeared before the department and provided the documents pertaining to the consignment in question. His version has already been detailed above and need no repetition. It is observed from the documents annexed with the show cause notice that it contains a copy of print out of D-IX/D-X Suvidha, which gives details of the consignment in question for VAT as well as interstate movement of consignments. As per the details contai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the circumstances, I find it difficult to go by the department's contentions that the seized goods are smuggled in nature. As regards the contentions that the variance in two reports from the CFL, I find that this contention alone is not sufficient to establish that the seized goods were smuggled in nature. Firstly, the samples are by nature samples only and cannot be said to represent the entire consignment practically. Secondly, there is indeed a time gap in drawal of two samples and chances of infection/infestation with insects cannot be ruled out. Hence, the possibility of at least some part of the consignment getting infected in the intervening period cannot be ruled out. In view of the above, I find that the seized goods pertain to legally imported consignment of betel nuts imported form Banglaesh vide Bill of Entry No. 01210/16/2013 dtd. 28.01.2013 processed at LCS, Petrapole. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice issued under C.No. VIII(10)10-Cus/P/H/Seiz/2012-13 dated 08.04.2013 is liable to be dropped. Order Taking into consideration all the facts, as discussed above, and in exercise of powers conferred upon me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verse report of C.F.L., Raxaul with regard to adulterated quality of the betel nuts dated 04.04.2013, could not be given them any power to review or recall the order of provisional release passed by the competent authority in exercise of power under Section 110(A) of the Act. 54. What would still make the matter worse for the authorities of the Custom Department is that after the adjudication in confiscation proceedings, in terms of Section 122 of Custom Act, had been brought to an end in favour of the petitioners on 29.11.2013 and there was no order of either confiscation or paying fine by the petitioners and, in fact, the proceedings itself was dropped, the authorities, in any view of the matter, whether in the name of the pendency of the report of the C.F.L. or otherwise, could not have kept the seized consignment of the petitioners in their possession even for a day. 55. Let it be noted that the appeal was filed by the Department against the order of the confiscation dated 29.11.2013 only on 25.03.2014 i.e. after a period of 04 months and in this period there was no stay of any court or any authority not to release the seized goods of the petitioners. 56. This Court, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same betel nuts were sent to the same C.F.L. Laboratory, Raxaul, the same person, namely, Dr. Debdutta Mishra, the Officer-in-charge, C.F.L., Kolkata in his report had given a complete different picture as would become clear from reading of such report dated 16.4.2014 reproduced herein below:- "Certificate No: INF/CFL/KOL/RXL/14/APR-35 Analysis Report iv) Sample Description : Split Betel Nut Batch- NIL v) Physical Appearance : Split Betel Nut in sealed envelop. vi) Label: Sl. No. Quality Characteristics Name of the Method test used Result Data Obtained Prescribed standards as per: a) Item no.2.12 & 2.3.47(5) of the FSS Regulation, 2011 b) As per label declaration for priority foods. c) As per provisions of the Act & Rules for both the above. 1. Physical Examination Visual Examination Betel Nut from fungal growth Free from fungal growth and discoloration 2. Extraneous Vegetable Matter (m/m) DGHS MANUAL Absent 1% 3. Damaged & Discolored Nuts including Insect Damaged Betel Nuts (m/m) DGHS MANUAL 62.18% 2% 4. Rodent Hair & Excreta DGHS MANUAL Present 5. Insect DGHS MANUAL Prese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....releasing the seized articles (betel nuts) of the petitioners. 61. This Court is also not in a position to accept the submission of Mrs. Nevedita Nirvikar, learned counsel for the respondents that the law has been laid down by this Court or the Apex Court in the case of Salsa Transport Company that the authorities of the Custom Department will be justified in not releasing the seized food articles if they were found to be allegedly contaminated. As a matter of fact, from the order of this Court dated 4.3.2013 in CWJC No. 3784 of 2013 in the case of Salsa Transport Company and another Vs. Union of India, it would be found that when the learned Single Judge had directed for releasing the betel nuts, the matter was taken to Division Bench in LPA No. 1186 of 2013 at the instance of Union of India and the Division Bench did not allow the plea of the Custom Department for not releasing the betel on account of its being allegedly adulterated as would be more apparent from the order dated 25.11.2013 in LPA No. 1186 of 2013, which is quoted herein below:- "This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the applicant Union of India against the order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dge has considered the application and has dealt with the contentions raised by the Union of India and has refused to modify the order. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge. The Appeal is devoid of any merit. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of." 62. The submission of Mrs. Nirvikar that the order of the Division Bench though assailed before the Apex Court by the Custom Department in the case of Salsar Transport Company (supra) in S.L.P. ----/2014 (CC 7331/2014) was affirmed by way of dismissal of S.L.P. but the question of law was left upon in the order of Apex Court dated 8.5.2014 shall never mean that the Apex Court had held that the Custom Authorities, who had already passed an order of provisional release like in the case of the petitioners and in whose favour the confiscation proceeding was also dropped, could still impound betel nuts by way of permanent seizure and confiscation. This Court cannot read so in the order of the Apex Court dated 8.5.2014 of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Custom Department observing question of law to be remain open much less hold that the release of the split betel nuts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when negative test report of C.F.L., Raxaul was received holding that there was nothing contaminated/ spurious in the quality of seized betel nuts of the petitioners. (iv) From 25.04.2014 to 09.08.2014 in the period in which neither there was any order of stay passed by the appellate authority against the final order of adjudication nor there was any adverse report against the quality of the seized betel nut being adulterated before it got released on 09.08.2014 in favour of the petitioners only on account of pendency of the writ application since 05.08.2014 and order of this Court dated 06.08.2014. 65. There is however no plausible much less acceptable explanation in the four set of counter affidavit filed in this case by the respondents and the only plea that the department had received an adverse report of the betel nuts being adulterated on 04.04.2013 also does not hold good either on facts or in law. As a matter of fact when the betel nuts were already directed to be provisionally released by an order dated 28.03.2013, there being no power of review in the adjudicatory authority, either the effort of the officials in withholding the seized consignment of cut betel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ease the articles of the petitioners. What would further shock this Court is that the appeal itself filed against the order of adjudicating authority dated 29.11.2013 on 25.03.2014 before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, there was again no justification in not releasing the seized goods of the petitioners even in this period of 29.11.2013 to 25.3.2014 of nearly four months inasmuch as the order of the adjudicating authority in confiscation proceedings dated 29.11.2013 had not been stayed by any competent authority or the Court. 69. The matter in fact become still worse for the authorities of the Custom Department because they had consumed a period of more than one year in only getting the test report of the Laboratory with regard to edible quality of the betel nuts and despite a negative test report of betel nuts dated 16.4.2014, the seized betel nuts of the petitioners was released by the Custom Department only on 9.8.2014. In fact, there could be no logic or justification whatsoever in not releasing the seized goods of the petitioners at least after receiving this negative test report of the betel nuts from the C.F.L. on 24.04.2014, holding the same to be neither spu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eventually has become absolutely of no use for the petitioners. The petitioners, in fact, were made to run around the corridors of the office of the Custom Department since 28.03.2013 for getting release of their seized articles and as such when there is also evidence to show both in the final order dropping the confiscation proceedings dated 29.11.2013 as also in test report of CFL dated 24.4.2014 that the seized betel nuts had also become rotten, damaged and discoloured on account of infection/infestation with insects in the period of more than one year primarily due to poor storage condition in the office and godown of Custom Department, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that it was on account of abnormal delay caused in releasing of the seized betel nuts of the petitioners that its utility value had been virtually reduced to Zero. 73. This Court, therefore, is of the view that had the authorities of the Custom Department released the seized betel nuts in view of provisional release dated 28.3.2013 by accepting the Bank guarantee as granted in the aforementioned order which they eventually did on 9.8.2013, neither the petitioners could have been put to a loss nor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms (Prev.) Patna. 75. Thus, the attempt made by Mr. Kishori Lal, Commissioner, Customs, Patna to mislead this Court is truly disappointing inasmuch as Mr. Kishori Lal, the Commissioner, Customs having given a statement in the supplementary counter affidavit before this Court that he will get an inquiry held as with regard to fixing the responsibility on the erring officials of the Custom Department who had caused delay of one and half year in releasing the betel nuts of the petitioners in all fairness ought to have not handed over such inquiry to any independent officer and not to Mr. Ramamurty who had to defend also his own action leading to delay in release of seized betel nuts. 76. Thus, having an overall picture this court will have no difficulty in coming to the ultimate conclusion that the petitioners on account of abnormal delay of almost 1½ years caused in release of its seized betel nuts have been put to a perennial loss. Since the authorities themselves had valued and quantified the price of the seized articles, namely, split betel nuts weighing 15.470 M.T. to the tune of Rs. 14,69,650/- on 17.2.2013, the petitioners would become at least entitled to reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action of administrative authority. But where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. When a citizen seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power and the National Commission finds it duly proved then it has a statutory obligation to award the same. It was never more necessary than today when even social obligations are regulated by grant of statutory powers. The test of permissive form of grant is over. It is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The well established precepts of public trust and public accountability are fully applicable to the functions which emerge from the public servants or even the persons holding public office. 214. In the case of State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh [(1997) 4 SCC 430], this Court, in exercise of the powers of judicial review, stated that the doctrine of `full faith and credit' applies to the acts 108 done by the officers in the hierarchy of the State. They have to faithfully discharge their duties to elongate public purpose. 215. The concept of public accountability and performance of functions takes in its ambit, proper and timely action in accordance with law. Public duty and public obligation both are essentials of good administration whether by the State or its instrumentalities. In the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [(2005) 8 SCC 202], this Court declared the dictum that State actions causing loss are actionable under public law. This is a result of innovation, a new tool with the courts which are the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens and would ensure protection against devastating results of State acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of illegal appointment had adopted the same yardstick for fixing responsibility against the government officers in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2013(1)PLJR 964 wherein it was held as follows:- "41. The public power to make appointment on public posts is conferred for public good. The power is given to the officer concerned by the government in trust, that it shall be used and not abused. If the trust is belied, the protection conferred upon a government servant stands denuded. The answerability and accountability is then individual of the officer. The government is duty bound to take appropriate civil/ criminal action against the officer. The illegality in the appointment is not a one way street. If there was someone willing to pay a price for the job, there was another waiting to take advantage of the same by fixing a price. It is not without reason that majority of such appointments relate to class III and IV posts. The standard by which the government professes to act is the same standard by which its action shall be judged. Therefore, whenever the government terminates an appointment being illegal, it is the constitution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. They are meant to be complied with. We therefore direct the State Govenrment to identify the officials concerned with the present appointments and take appropriate action against them in accordance with law and expeditiousness. Let a report be then submitted within eight weeks." 82. Thus, when this Court has found that the petitioners have been put to a loss of at least Rs. 14,69,650/- on account of complete deterioration of quality of split betel nuts solely on account of deliberate laches on the part of the officials of the Custom Department it would direct respondent no.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 14,69,650/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period 28.3.2013, the date on which the order of provisional release of the seized article was passed by the competent authority to the order directing release of the seized articles dated 9.8.2014 within a period of three months from today. 83. It is, however, made clear that such amount, which has to be paid by way of compensation for the loss caused to the petitioners on account of delay of nearly 1½ years in release of the seized articles, shall be recovered from the erring officials and for the purpo....