HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 21122 OF 2014 DATE: 11.11.2014 Between:
M/s. Kyori Oremin Ltd., Hyderabad.
… Petitioner And Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of finance, Dept., of Revenue, New Delhi & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 21122 of 2014 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.04.2014, which is said to have been passed pursuant to our order dated 27.03.2014 in W.P.No.9393 of 2014.
The law permits to appoint a common adjudicating officer. Section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides so, which reads as follows:
“5. Powers of officers of customs. – (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Board may impose, an officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under this Act.
(2) An officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed under this Act on any other officer of customs who is subordinate to him.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, a Commissioner (Appeals) shall not exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on an officer of customs other than those specified in Chapter XV and section 108.”
It appears that the department thus thought it fit to appoint individual adjudicating officer for individual action. Because of common issue involved and also for convenience sake and in order to avoid conflict of judicial decisions, common adjudicating officer is sought to be appointed. From the records, it appears that there is a precedent for such appointment. On the aforesaid ground, on earlier occasion in a writ petition being W.P.No.9393 of 2014 we directed the 2nd respondent therein to dispose of the representation of the petitioner for appointment of common adjudicating officer and the impugned order is a culmination of the aforesaid consideration of the said representation.
We have seen the impugned order and we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order cannot stand in the scrutiny, as the same does not carry any reasons as to why the appointment could not be made. It is an admitted position that a number of proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and involvement of common question of law is there and it is also borne out from the record that in past common adjudicating officer was appointed.
The impugned order does not carry any reasons as to why the request for appointment of common adjudicating officer is rejected. According to us, when the power is given for refusal, such power should be exercised by giving reasons and there must have an object to achieve. We think that such objective purpose is not reflected in the impugned order. Accordingly, we set aside the same and direct the Director of Customs to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law by giving reasons. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 11.11.2014 ES