Hem Electric Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Ce and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
held: stay - application pending for waiver of pre-deposit--recovery of duty--tribunal directed to decide stay and waiver application within two weeks and department restrained from taking steps for recovery of duty until such decision has been taken. cea: section 35f. - land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require 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. 1. the contention of the petitioner is that against the order of the adjudicating authority an appeal was filed (see appeal memo, annexure-12 to the writ petition). it is averred that with the appeal memo the petitioner also made stay and waiver applications, which are pending.2. the grievance of the petitioner is that without awaiting decision on the stay and waiver application the respondents are rushing up with the recovery.3. upon hearing the parties, the petition is disposed of finally directing the appellate tribunal customs, excise and gold (control), new delhi, respondent no. 4 to decide the stay and waiver application, if any made, within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioner who undertakes to produce the same within one week from today. until decision on stay and waiver application by respondent no. 4, no further steps will be taken by the respondents to recover the impugned duty.4. if steps as aforesaid are not taken by the petitioner then the stay order will stand vacated.5. certified copy of this order will be supplied to the parties on payment within 24 hours.