1996 (6) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hah Mohammed Quadri]. - The petitioner has suffered an order of adjudication at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Hyderabad - 2nd respondent on 4-1-1996. Against that Order, it filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Along with that appeal an application praying....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enforce the detention order D.O.R. No. 38/93, dated 4-6-1996 of the 2nd respondent. 2.Shri Jagannadha Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition under the proviso to Section 35-F of the Act, the 1st respondent ought to have exercised his discretion and passed appropriate orders. He further submits that the non-exercise of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st respondent is not exercising his jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 35-F. The cardinal principle is no mistake or inaction on the part of a statutory authority should be allowed to prejudice the rights of the citizens. In this case, it is evident that for more than four months, the petition filed under the proviso to Section 35-F remains undisposed of. In the absence of any order by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in that case, this Court came to the conclusion that it was not a case of non-exercise of jurisdiction whereas the case on hand is a clear case of non-exercise of jurisdiction. Therefore, the case relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, cannot be an authority to decline relief to the petitioner. 6.For the above reasons, we direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the sta....