SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 579

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : M.N.Venkatachaliah
Sanghi Textile Processors Private
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise
Case No. : 11569 of 1989
Date of Decision : 11/15/89
Advocates Appeared: Balachandran V. : Ganesh M.S. : Ganguli A.K. : Prasad B.Krishna : Rao A.R.Madhava : Rao P.P. : Sorabjee Soli J. : Swamy K.

Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, A.R.MADHAV RAO, B.KRISHNA PRASAD, K.SWAMY, M.S.GANESH, P.P.Rao, SOLI J.SORABJI, V.BALACHANDRAN

Headnote:

Constitution Of India,1950 - Certain departmental instructions - Departmental Instructions – Court have heard Sri Soli for petitioners and Sri Ganguly for Revenue - Petitioners having asked for copies of all documents on which Collector of central Excise proposed to rely latter having regard to voluminous and spread out nature of documents consisting of number of registers files and other records suggested that petitioners may inspect documents and make copies photostat or otherwise of whatever documents they wish to have - This in our opinion is reasonable suggestion as otherwise it would perhaps be struggle with infinity for department to furnish copies of each and every document question is who bear expenses involved in taking out Photostats - Petitioners rely this behalf on certain departmental instructions to say that department has to pay –Held, Reasonable expenditure for copying whatever document petitioner would ultimately find it reasonably necessary to take copies of shall be reimbursed by department to petitioners Departmental Instructions enjoins on it to furnish copies at its own cost reasonable and pragmatic solution is to require Collector have a meeting with petitioners and their learned counsel find out a practical way of identifying essential documents required to be made copies of - It would also perhaps be appropriate for Collector to sift seized documents and as far practicable at this stage identify documents essentially necessary for department so that non-essential surplusage could be weeded out to extent possible to reduce number of documents which the petitioner may make copies of - Petition disposed

(1) WE have heard Sri Soli J. Sorabjee, for the petitioners and Sri Ganguly for the Revenue. Petitioners having asked for copies of all the documents on which the Collector of central Excise proposed to rely, the latter having regard to voluminous and spread out nature of the documents, consisting of number of registers, files and other records, suggested that petitioners may inspect the documents and make copies - photostat or otherwise - of whatever documents they wish to have. This, in our opinion, is a reasonable suggestion, as otherwise it would, perhaps, be a struggle with infinity for the department to furnish copies of each and every document. The question is who is to bear the expenses involved in taking out photostats. Petitioners rely in this behalf on certain departmental instructions to say that the department has to pay.

(2) THE reasonable and pragmatic solution is to require the Collector to have a meeting with petitioners and their learned counsel to find out a practical way of identifying essential documents required to be made copies of. It would also, perhaps, be appropriate for the Collector to sift the seized documents and, as far as practicable at this stage, to identify the documents essentially necessary for the department so that the non-essential surplusage could be weeded out to the extent possible to reduce the number of documents which the petitioner may make copies of.

(3) REASONABLE expenditure for copying whatever document the petitioner would ultimately find it reasonably necessary to take copies of, shall be reimbursed by the department to the petitioners. Para 9(a) of the Departmental Instructions, enjoins on it to furnish copies at its own cost.

(4) THE documents on which the department does not seek to rely shall be returned to the petitioners, if not already done, within four weeks from today.

(5) WITH these observations and directions, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top