ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of condition No.3 of Office Memorandum in O.M.No.8/131/2016-PP.II, dated

27.12.2018, issued by the 1st respondent.

2.A learned Single Judge of this Court at Principal Seat in a batch of cases in W.P.No.18405 of 2019 etc., batch [M/s.Best Timbers, Rep. its Partner, Mr.C.R.Krishna vs. Union of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi and the Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine Station, Tuticorin and batch] has passed an order dated 06.09.2021 and disposed the batch. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:-

''WP No. 18405 of 2019 is filed questioning the validity and/or correctness of the condition No. (iii) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2018 issued by the first respondent in and by which penal fee was levied for those consignments covered under the bills of lading in the country of export, before 30th June 2019.

2. Similar condition was imposed by the first respondent by issuing various other Office Memorandum and they are the subject matter of the other writ petitions.

3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are importers,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.ini/mjudpisorting timbers and other goods from various countries across the

world. Earlier, wooden logs were procured from local resources within the country. However, felling of spontaneous trees for industrial purpose has been prohibited by virtue of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India. Therefore, the importers like the petitioners have resorted to import wooden logs from countries like Latin America, Western Africa etc., It is contended that the wood required for the Industry has to be fumigated/treated with “Methyl bromide“ but it is prohibited in the European Countries and therefore, the wooden logs could not be subjected to fumigation at the port of Boarding. Taking note of the difficulties faced by the importers, the first respondent in exercise of the power conferred under Order 14 of the Plant Quarantine Regulation of Import into India Order, 2003, granted relaxation of fumigation norms at the port of Boarding and permitted fumigation at the Port of discharge. Having relaxed the fumigation norms for some time, the first respondent imposed certain conditions for importing timber/wooden logs. One of the conditions being imposition of penalty for fumigation of the wooden logs Contending that the Plant Quarantine Regulations of Import into India Order, 2003 does not provide any power or authority to the first respondent to levy any penalty, the petitioners are before this Court with this batch of writ petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order 2003 framed under Sub~Section (1) of Section 3 of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 (2 of 1974) regulates the import of various agricultural articles including wooden logs into India. In Para No.9, Chapter VI of the said Regulation, timber can be imported into India only if it is appropriately fumigated/treated and is accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued at the country of export. It is contended that such fumigation is prohibited in European Countries. However, the first respondent relaxed such condition periodically and permitted import of wooden logs and other products. While so, by the impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2018, which is impugned in WP No. 18405 of 2019 as well as by issuing similar other Office Memorandum, the first respondent imposed certain conditions for relaxing the off shore fumigation. One of conditions is that the consignment will be charged with penalty/inspection fee. According to the petitioners, while granting relaxation earlier, the first respondent did not impose any such penalty or levy. The first respondent also did not assign any new reason for imposit