High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Dutta
TERAI OVERSEAS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Respondent
WP 2315 Of 1995
Decided On : 04/19/1996
CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - SECTION 106A - WRIT PETITION - APPLICATION TO BE ADDED AS PARTY-RESPONDENT - PROPER AND NECESSARY PARTY - DIRECT INTEREST IN SUBJECT MATTER - SCOPE OF WRIT APPLICATION - JURISDICTION - LOCUS STANDI - LEGAL INTEREST - RULE 53 OF THE RULES UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ORDER 1, RULE 10 (2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
The Applicant, the Assistant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta Zonal Unit, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, applied to be added as a Party-Respondent in a Writ Petition filed by M/s. Terai Overseas Limited (Petitioner), challenging the detention of goods attempted to be exported by the Petitioner. The Applicant contended that the goods did not match the description and declaration given to the Customs Authorities, and that the Petitioner had attempted to illegally export them under a claim of drawback. The Petitioner opposed the application, arguing that the Applicant had no locus standi and was neither a proper nor a necessary party in the Writ Proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Applicant did not have a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the Writ Petition and was not a proper or necessary party. The Court noted that the Writ Petition was directed against the Customs Authorities and raised issues related to the exportability of the goods and the jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities to detain them. The Court further held that the Applicant could not be added as a Party-Respondent merely because it had a commercial interest in the matter and that its presence was not necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating upon the issues raised in the Writ Petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the Applicant, the Assistant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, was a proper or necessary party in the Writ Petition filed by M/s. Terai Overseas Limited. 2. Whether the Applicant had a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the Writ Petition. 3. Whether the Applicant had locus standi to be added as a Party-Respondent in the Writ Proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision: 1. Rule 53 of the Rules under Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides that the procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings for the issue of a Writ. 2. Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a person whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the Suit/proceedings may be added as a Party. 3. A person who is not directly interested in the issues between the Plaintiff and the defendant but is only indirectly or commercially affected cannot be added as a defendant because the Court has no jurisdiction under the relevant Rule to bring him on record even as a proper party. 4. In order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest, as distinct from a commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the Applicant's application to be added as a Party-Respondent in the Writ Petition. The Court held that the Applicant did not have a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the Writ Petition and was not a proper or necessary party. The Court further held that the Applicant could not be added as a Party-Respondent merely because it had a commercial interest in the matter and that its presence was not necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating upon the issues raised in the Writ Petition.
( 1 ) THE Applicant, the Assistant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta Zonal Unit, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) has, by the instant application, prayed the Court for leave to be added as a Party-Respondent to the instant Writ Proceedings and/or to be allowed to intervene in the instant Writ Proceedings, along with some other prayers made therein, contending, inter alia, that he has a direct interest in the subject matter of the goods in question which were attempted to be exported by the Writ Petitioner, M/s. Terai Overseas Limited (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), in the facts and circumstances stated therein.
( 2 ) IT is contended by the Applicant that if the goods in question are allowed to be examined by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) it would clearly reveal that the Petitioner had attempted to export the same, which do not match the description and/or declaration given before the Customs Authorities in the Shipping Bills submitted by it (Petitioner ). Such examination would show that the Petitioner had deliberately declared and over-invoiced the said goods and had attempted to export the same illegally under a claim of drawback out of India in contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, making the same (goods) liable to confiscation thereunder. It is neither open to the Petitioner to take back the goods which were attempted to be exported before allowing the Applicant to examine the same under the aforesaid provisions. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated December 19,1995 had given liberty to "the parties to take appropriate directions from the Trial Court where the Writ Petition is pending and the Trial Court will pass such order as it may deem proper without being influenced by any order or direction contained in the impugned order. " Hence the instant application by the Applicant for being added as a party to the instant Writ Proceedings, since he is not only a proper party but a necessary party herein, and it is necessary and proper that the Writ Application be decided in his presence.
( 3 ) THE application made by the Applicant is supported by the Respondents. It had been submitted by Mr. Sibdas Banerjee, the learned Counsel for the contending Respondents, that, in the facts and circumstances submitted on behalf of the Applicant, the Writ Application should be decided in his presence.
( 4 ) THE application filed by the Applicant is vehemently opposed by the Petitioner contending, inter alia, that he (applicant) is neither a proper party nor a necessary party in the instant writ proceedings. He has neither any locus standi to be added as a Party-Respondent herein. His application is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
( 5 ) BEFORE entering into the factual aspect of the application by the Applicant for being added as a Party-Respondent herein, I would feel inclined to deal with the legal aspect thereof for considering as to who could or could not be added as a party to a judicial proceedings, like the instant Writ Proceedings. Rule 53 of the Rules under Article 226 of the Constitution of India framed by the High Court reads as follows :"save and except as provided by these rules and subject thereto, the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1980) in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings for issue of a Writ. "
( 6 ) THE Code of Civil Procedure has thus been made applicable to the Writ Proceedings. The circumstances under which a person can be added as a Party to a Suit has been provided in Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which runs as follows :-"the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.