ORDER
1. Writ Petition Nos. 1006 to 1008 of 2001 not on Board. Mentioned urgently by Mr. Nankani and taken up after notice to the Respondents. By consent, the said Writ Petitions called out and heard along with Writ Petition No. 914 of 2001.
2. In Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2001, serious allegations of bias, prejudice and playing into the hands of vested interests in the Custom Department have been levelled against the Respondent No. 2. The overanxiety displayed by the Respondent No. 2 to transfer the Appeals to be heard at Delhi, lends a modicum of credence to the allegations. In the first place, the transfer of the Appeal to Delhi was made straightaway at the request of the Department without even ascertaining the convenience of the Petitioner : on the second occasion, despite our Order dated 24th January 2001, the Respondent No. 2 reiterated the order and retained the matters at Delhi. Finally, when the learned Additional Solicitor General advised the Respondent No. 2 to withdraw the order as he felt that it was unsustainable, the Respondent No. 2 withdrew the order and gave a hearing to the Petitioners. Two serious objections were raised.
First, that Solly Perumal was neither resident of Delhi nor, did he have a business place at Delhi as he was always a resident of Gandhidham where he had his business as a Custom House Agent. The allegation is that Solly Perumal engineered to give a bogus address in Delhi care of a book shop so as to present the Appeal to the Principal Bench of the CEGAT at Delhi. It is on the strength of Solly Perumal’s Appeal that all the connected Appeals of the officers situated at Mumbai and some situated in Gujarat State, all of which would properly lie before the Western Zonal Branch of the CEGAT, are sought to be transferred to the Principal Bench at Delhi.
3. Under normal circumstances, we would be very reluctant to interfere with an administrative order passed by a quasi/quasi-judicial Tribunal reallocating judicial business. However, there are serious allegations made in Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2001 against the Respondent No. 2 (President of the CEGAT) himself.
4. Before we decide what needs to be done, we feel it necessary that the Respondent No. 2 should be given an opportunity of clearing his name.
5. Notice be issued to the President of the CEGAT, Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2001, to file an affidavit-in-reply, if he chooses to, on or before 19th June 2001.
6. In the meanwhile, there shall be an ad interim stay of the order of the Respondent No. 2, dated 29th March 2001.
7. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.
8. Issuance of certified copy expedited.