The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent who is the Proper Officer to issue a speaking order on the petitioner's claim application by observing the principles of natural justice within a reasonable period.
2. On going through the prayer in the writ petition and the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and the typeset of papers, this Court does not find any claim application. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to pages 2 and 3 of the typeset of papers filed on 21.11.2005 wherein details of 35 shipping bills are set out in a tabular column. It does not state to which authority it has been addressed and what is the nature of relief claimed. It is a tabular sheet with no details as to the name of sender and it bears no signature.
3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the details of the claim has been given in the earlier Writ Petition No.15015 of 2005, which has been dismissed as withdrawn. The earlier writ petition and its details does not find a place in the present writ petition.
4. Mr.K.Ravichandrababu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel points out that in respect of the 35 shipping bills and related drawback claims, W.P.No.15015 of 2005 was filed for the following relief:-
"Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the 35 nos. drawback claims filed by the petitioner on various dates without insisting to file supplementary claims and by observing the principles of natural justice."
The petitioner withdrew the above writ petition and an order has been passed on 6.10.2005 as follows:-
"ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner has given a letter dated 20.09.2005 to the Registry seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The matter is posted today for withdrawal. A similar request is made before this court today by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs."
5. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner agitated the drawback claim in the earlier writ petition for the 35 shipping bills. Petitioner withdrew the earlier writ petition on his own. No liberty was granted to pursue the matter thereafter. Petitioner has now ingeniously filed this second writ petition to direct the respondents to pass a speaking order on an extinguished or abandoned claim so as to create a cause of action for renewing the drawback claim which was abandoned in the earlier proceedings.
6. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated as follows:-
"The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of fact since the petitioner has not disclosed in their affidavit about the earlier writ petition filed and its dismissal in W.P.No.15015/05"
7. The present writ petition is vague and bereft of details as set out above. It should have been dismissed even at the stage of admission.
8. The claim for drawback in respect of the 35 shipping bills and the order dismissing W.P.No.15015 of 2005 by order of this Court dated 6.10.2005 has not been mentioned in the affidavit or in the grounds. It is the respondents' counsel who pointed out the dismissal of the earlier writ petition. The petitioner's counsel tried to explain the suppression of fact by stating that it is not necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition. This Court is unable to accept the plea. The nature of relief is the same but worded differently.
9. The petitioner has already raised his plea for drawback in the earlier W.P.No.15015 of 2005 on the 35 shipping bills and has withdrawn the same. No liberty was granted. The present writ petition is not maintainable on the very same cause of action for the very same relief by a differently worded prayer. The earlier proceedings have not been disclosed thereby creating a doubt. Further, the prayer in the writ petition is vague and bereft of details. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
ts To
1.Deputy Commissioner of Customs, (EDI Drawback), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.
2.Chief Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1