IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12672 of 2010
Mohan Goswami S/O Rsi Ram Narayan Goswami R/O Vill.+Post- Dhandiha,
P.S.- Koelwar, Distt.- Arra
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India
2. Central Board Of Excise & Customs North Block, New Delhi Through Its
Chairman, The Chairman, Central Board Of Excise & Customs, North
Block, New Delhi
3. The Member, Central Board Of Excise & Customs, North Block, New
Delhi
4. The Chief Commissioner, Government Of India Ministry Of
Finance/Department Of Revenue, Customs (Preventive), Central Revenue
Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-800001
5. The Commissioner Of Customs (Prevent) Government Of India, Ministry
O Finance/Department Of Revenue, Customs (Preventive), 5th Floor,
Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna-800001
... Respondents
--------
For the Petitioner : M/s Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and
Umesh Kumar Verma, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, S.S.C.C.G. .
——–
03/ 09.09.2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the
following reliefs :-
(i) For restraining the respondent-authorities to auction
the confiscated items under the provision of
Customs Act, contrary to the Government of India
circular where the procedure has been laid down
for disposal of the confiscated items.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the
respondents to destroy the Betel Nut which has
been seized/confiscated and put on auction vide
Tender Notice dated 12.05.2010 at lot No. GE-
09/INP/JBN/09-10, lot No. GE-10/ INP/ JBN/09-
10, lot No. GE-07/ INP/JBN/09-10 and lot No.
143UC/09 dated 16.09.2009.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
-2-
mandamus commanding the respondents to destroy
the aforementioned betel nut measuring quantity
45.36 MT in the light of the relevant provisions of
the Customs Act.
(iv) For direction upon the respondent authorities to
take necessary disciplinary action against the
respondent Commissioner for disobeying the
direction issued by the Commissioner and
jeopardizing the life of million of consumers of
adulterated betel nuts as declared by the Central
Food Laboratory, Kolkata.
(v) Any other order or orders as your Lordships may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. The petitioner claimed to be member of State
Committee, Indian National Trade Union Congress and purchaser of
betel nuts from Central Government Employees Consumer’s Co-
operative Society (Kendriya Bhandar) and National Consumer Co-
operative Federation (NCCF) and came to know that respondent Customs
Department was taking steps for auction sale of adulterated betel nuts,
which were confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962. He also claimed to
have sent letter dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure 6) to all the authorities
concerned regarding smuggling of betel nuts in collusion with Patna
Custom Authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
betel nuts are the largest single consumer item smuggled into India from
Nepal regularly by organized gangs of smugglers and the Kanpur Gutka
Manufacturers were major financers of smuggling of betel nuts, which
was, thus, not only an economic offence of smuggling but was also a
-3-
health hazard spreading cancer through its products e.g. Gutka & Paan
Masala etc. and hence the authorities were duty bound to take steps for
checking the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that in these circumstances the Central Government through Chief
Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), vide letter dated 30.04.2010
(Annexure 3), directed the Central Board of Excise & Customs not to
sell such confiscated items in public auction as they were sensitive
commodities prone to smuggling and to offer it to Kendriya Bhandar and
NCCF only as they were government organizations and similar directions
were earlier also issued by the Government of India to all the concerned
Departments vide letter dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure 4), letter dated
24.12.1997 (Annexure 3 series), Circular dated 27.02.1981 (Annexure 3
series) and Circular dated 12.02.1969 (Annexure 3 series).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that
the Betel Nuts in question were adulterated with fungal growth and
insect damage as would be apparent from the Informal Analysis Report
dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure 2) of Raxaul Extension Centre of the
Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata. For these eventualities the
Government of India vide its letter dated 15.06.2001 (Annexure 5)
restrained the authorities from auction selling such goods in the country
and directed them to re-export it out of the country by following the usual
legal process or to destroy it as required under the relevant rules. Hence
he claimed that on this ground also the betel nut in question cannot be
auction sold.
-4-
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that there is no Kendriya Bhandar in Patna and
hence earlier such betel nuts were provided to NCCF for selling it in
retail to Co-operative Societies under the authorities, but subsequently
NCCF started selling it to big concerns like the Kanpur Manufacturers,
which were preparing hazardous and harmful items like Paan Masala and
Gutka etc. However, the petitioner has failed to implead NCCF as a party
in this case.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that in
view of the said facts the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) wrote
letter dated 22.01.2010 to the Directorate General of Vigilance (Customs
& Central Excise) for guidance regarding disposal of seized/confiscated
betel nuts to which the said Directorate replied vide letter dated
26.03.2010 (Annexure-A) that in these circumstances it would be proper
to allow the procedure of sale through public auction cum tender as
applicable in case of other commercial goods for the sake of
transparency. He also stated that in the said situation seized/confiscated
betel nuts are sold in all the States through E-Auction as has been done in
this State and this fact is apparent from FAX dated 25.01.2010
(Annexure-C) sent by Kolkata Office of the Commissioner of Customs
(Preventive) to his counterpart in Patna.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that
only after testing the betel nuts and grading them, they are recommended
for disposal for which a detailed prescribed procedure is adopted as
shown by the recommendations of 2009 and 2010 (Annexures-B series).
-5-
He also claimed that in one test at Raxaul the betel nuts in question were
found adulterated only on one count, but in the second test at Kolkata
they were not found adulterated on any count and only thereafter they
were recommended for E-Auction as directed by the Directorate General
of Vigilance (Customs & Central Excise) vide letter dated 26.03.2010
(Annexure-A). However, other betel nuts, which were found adulterated
were destroyed after taking permission dated 03.02.2009 (Annexure-D)
from the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive).
9. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that the
entire procedure as prescribed has been followed by the authorities, in
which anyone could have participated, even the petitioner, but neither he
participated nor raised any objection during the proceeding and only after
the bidding was complete and the auction purchaser was selected, he has
raised this frivolous objection, which is not sustainable as neither there
has been any procedural misconduct nor any illegality has been
committed by the authorities in this regard.
10. Considering the above noted arguments of learned
counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is apparent that the
respondents have proceeded as per the rules and the various instructions
from the Central Government in view of the relevant circumstances and
developments specially the absence of Kendriya Bhandar and the illegal
activities of the NCCF. The respondents have also been able to show that
in the aforesaid circumstances they were duty bound to sell the betel nuts
by E-Auction after getting it tested at Kolkata Laboratory, which reported
it to be unadulterated and fit for human consumption.
-6-
11. Furthermore even as per the claim of the petitioner,
NCCF was the concerned person, which was deprived due to the
impugned action of the respondent-authorities, but neither the said NCCF
ever raised any grievance or filed any case, nor the petitioner even
impleaded NCCF as a party to this writ petition, although according to
the case made out by him it was a necessary party.
12. In any view of the matter, the petitioner has been
unable to substantiate and validly show from the statements made in the
writ petition that his interest had suffered or any right has been taken
away or he had been affected in any manner whatsoever by the impugned
action of the respondent-authorities. He has also failed to prove by any
valid material that he had ever been purchaser of betel nuts from
Kendriya Bhandar or NCCF.
13. Thus the petitioner appears to be a busy body
poking his nose in every pie in sight for sniffing out some advantage to
which he is not legally entitled and hence this writ petition, not being a
public interest litigation, cannot be legally entertained.
14. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find
any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)