Ashwani Kumar JaIn Vs. Cegat

.....the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - we are satisfied that tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances and has allowed the prayer of waiver of the deposit partly.order1. heard shri pramod kumar jain, advocate appearing for the petitioners and shri anoop kumar srivastava, additional standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. by this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-4-2002 passed by customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal by which the application for waiver of pre-deposit has been decided.3. the counsel for the petitioners has stated that an amount of penalty imposed by the order dated 29.10.2001 is more than 4.5 crores. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has directed deposit of sum of only rs. 20,00,000/- from the petitioner no. 1 and rs. 5,00,000/- from petitioner no. 2. on the deposit of the above mentioned amount, the deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalty has been waived for hearing of the appeal. we are satisfied that tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances and has allowed the prayer of waiver of the deposit partly.4. we do not find any error in the order dated 22.4.2002. no interference is called with the impugned order in the present writ petition.5. there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.