Sindh Detergent and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
held: writ - pre-deposit--stay--court directions--tribunal was directed by high court to dispose of the petitioner's appeal after security was furnished by the petitioner in lieu of pre-deposit. the petitioner has complied, but the tribunal has still not decided the appeal. high court reaffirms its earlier order and disposes of w.p. - 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. orderm.c. ararwal, j.1. by this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 28.12.1995 and 11.3.1996 passed by the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal, new delhi in appeal nos. e/1130-1133/95-nb and e/1132-1133/95-nb respectively under the proviso of section 35f of the central excises and salt act, 1944.2. when the petition first came up before this court on 30th of april, 1996 it was ordered as under:however, it is provided in the meantime that if the petitioner furnishes security other than cash and bank guarantee in respect of the amount of pre-deposit directed by the learned tribunal vide order dated 28.12.1995 the latter shall accept the same and proceed to hear and decide the appeals no. e/1130-1132/95-nb expeditiously so that justice may not be denied to the petitioner for want of available fund to satisfy the condition of pre-deposit.3. the learned standing counsel for the respondents was granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit vide order dated 30th april, 1996. since then no counter affidavit has been filed. no one is present for the union of india in spite of the name of the counsel shri u.n. sharma and shri shishir sharma being printed in the cause list.4. on 7.4.1997 the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to intimate as to whether after the aforesaid order dated 30th of april, 1996, appeal nos. 1130 and 1132 of 1995 have been disposed of. he is unable to make any statement about it but states that the petitioner had complied with the said order and furnished security as directed by this court.5. i have heard shri rajesh kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and in my view the petitioner having furnished security in pursuance of the order dated 30th april, 1996 and this court having ordered and directed the tribunal to decide the appeals, nothing further requires to be done in the writ petition. the same is, accordingly, hereby disposed of affirming the aforesaid order dated 30th april, 1996. parties will bear their own costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.C. Ararwal, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 28.12.1995 and 11.3.1996 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. E/1130-1133/95-NB and E/1132-1133/95-NB respectively under the proviso of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. When the petition first came up before this Court on 30th of April, 1996 it was ordered as under:

However, it is provided in the meantime that if the petitioner furnishes security other than cash and bank guarantee in respect of the amount of pre-deposit directed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.12.1995 the latter shall accept the same and proceed to hear and decide the appeals No. E/1130-1132/95-NB expeditiously so that justice may not be denied to the petitioner for want of available fund to satisfy the condition of pre-deposit.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit vide order dated 30th April, 1996. Since then no counter affidavit has been filed. No one is present for the Union of India in spite of the name of the counsel Shri U.N. Sharma and Shri Shishir Sharma being printed in the cause list.

4. On 7.4.1997 the learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to intimate as to whether after the aforesaid order dated 30th of April, 1996, appeal Nos. 1130 and 1132 of 1995 have been disposed of. He is unable to make any statement about it but states that the petitioner had complied with the said order and furnished security as directed by this Court.

5. I have heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and in my view the petitioner having furnished security in pursuance of the order dated 30th April, 1996 and this Court having ordered and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeals, nothing further requires to be done in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, hereby disposed of affirming the aforesaid order dated 30th April, 1996. Parties will bear their own costs.