Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15744/2010 17/ 17 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15744 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
N
K PROTEINS LIMITED & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA - THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
KAMAL TRIVEDI, SR. ADVOCATE for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA
for Petitioners
NOTICE
NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1, 3,
MR RJ OZA for
Respondent(s) : 2,4 - 5.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 17/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
The
learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered a draft amendment.
The amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The same shall be
carried out forthwith.
Rule.
Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
Considering
the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, the
petition was taken up for final hearing and is finally disposed of
by this judgment.
By
this petition, the petitioner, a Public Limited Company, seeks the
following substantive relief:
“[10] Under
the circumstances, petitioners most respectfully pray that:
[A] Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, quashing
Detention Memo No.1/2010-11 dated 19.9.2010 (Annexure-G) and Seizure
Memo dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure-H);
[A-1] Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the respondents, their servants and agents for release of
the goods in question for reprocessing the same on such terms and
conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper and after
reprocessing the same, be permitted to clear the goods for home
consumption after carrying out legal requirements, inclusive of test.
[B] Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondents No.2 to 5 to decide
representations for provisional release of goods imported vide Bill
of Entry No.000198 dated 6.8.2010, Kandla Port;”
The
facts of the case as appearing in the petition are that the
petitioner company in the regular course of its business, entered
into a contract with M/s PEC Limited for the purchase of 5,000 MT
+/- 2% “Cottonseed Oil of Edible Grade” (fit for human
consumption after further refining) on high seas sale basis. On
arrival of the cargo at Kandla Port, the petitioner company filed
Bill of Entry No.000198 dated 6.8.2010. Since the cargo was not
being released, the petitioner furnished a PD bond for provisional
assessment and release of the goods in question. The petitioner, in
its letter dated 4.9.2010 addressed to the Customs Department,
stated that after the cargo is released, the same would be refined
at its factory under the custody of the Central Excise authorities.
The petitioner also undertook that after confirmation of test
results of samples, which would be forwarded subsequent to the
refining, to the effect that the same meets with standards laid down
under the PFA, the goods in question would be released for human
consumption. The Bill of Entry filed by the petitioner was assessed
provisionally pending the test reports for confirmation from the
Central Excise as per PFA standards on 13.9.2010. Thereafter, the
petitioner company requested the Customs Department to allow
refining of the goods at its plants. Subsequently, the petitioner
company received a copy of a letter dated 16.9.2010 addressed by the
Assistant Commissioner (Group-1), Kandla, to the concerned Central
Excise authorities, where the plants of the petitioner are situated.
In the said letter, a reference to the test report given by the Port
Health Officer, Kandla, on the samples drawn had been made in the
following terms:
“PHK/E/131
to 134/2010 DOES NOT CONFORM to the standards & provisions as
laid down under the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955,
for Cottonseed Oil on account of Acid Value of 0.65% (0.5). On
discussion with the Chief Technical Officer, CFL, Pune, the oil can
be used for human consumption, only after proper & thorough
cleaning, refining & conforming to the standards as laid under
the item A-17 15 of PFA Rules, 1955, during this period the cargo
must be under the custody of the Customs and Central excise. On
completion of the refining, a sample has to be sent for analysis and
on conformation to the PFA standards, the cargo must be released for
human consumption.”
Thereafter,
there is a reference to the contents of the petitioner’s letter
dated 14.9.2010 after which it is stated thus:
“It
is therefore requested to ensure that the following step at your end:
“[i] To
ensure that cargo released from Kandla is reached at the declared
plant having relevant Central Excise Jurisdiction thereon, cargo must
be stored separately.
[ii] To
draw the sample of the refined cargo and send to Director, CFL,
Vadodara for testing purpose, intimating this office.
[iii] On
receipt of the report from CFL, Vadodara, confirming the standards
laid down in Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the
cargo may be released by Central Excise Authorities.
[iv] Report
may be sent to this office.”
In
the footnote to the said letter, the petitioner company was directed
to follow the instructions and release the cargo only after
confirmation from Central Excise Authorities/customs, and that final
assessment only could be done after conformation with the PFA
standards.
Out
of the entire cargo imported, the petitioner company lifted 135.950
MT for refining the same at its plant at Thor, District Mehsana.
Vide letter dated 18.9.2010, the Customs Department directed the
petitioner company to stop the delivery of cargo lifted till further
order. Vide Detention Memo No.1/2010-11, the officers of Central
Excise Department, Kadi detained the cargo which was lifted on
19.9.2010 after which, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(DRI), Gandhidham drew 12 samples of the said cargo and prepared a
panchnama in that regard on 22.9.2010. Subsequently, by a
communication dated 23.9.2010 issued by the Customs Department to
the Central Excise authorities, a copy whereof was forwarded to the
petitioner company, it was stated that further progress in the
matter should not be allowed and there should be no further receipt
of the cargo till further orders from DRI. Thereafter, the balance
quantity of the entire cargo, being 4867.222 MT, came to be seized
by the DRI on 29.9.2010 under the provisions of section 110 of the
Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). Since the petitioner company was in
dire need of the goods in question as a huge amount of capital was
blocked for the purpose of procuring the same as well as in view of
the fact that the goods were of perishable nature, the petitioner
addressed a representation dated 4.10.2010 to the respondent
No.4-Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, with a copy to the respondent No.2-Commissioner of
Customs, Kandla, requesting for release of the seized cargo on such
terms and conditions as may be deemed fit pending inquiry into the
matter. Subsequently, further representations and written
submissions were made explaining that serious problems were likely
to be caused due to delay in release of the goods in question and
that irreparable financial loss running into crores of rupees was
being caused to the petitioner company. Subsequently, the DRI
advised the petitioner company to deposit the entire differential
amount pertaining to the goods in question being Rs.1,62,96,312/-
pursuant to which, the petitioner company deposited the said amount
on 11.10.2010. Similarly, the petitioner company deposited the
entire amount of differential amount of Rs.1,74,00,112/- in relation
to goods imported in the year 2009 as directed by the DRI.
Thereafter, various representations were made reiterating the
hardships caused to the petitioner. However, since the
representations remained unattended, the petitioner has moved the
present petition seeking the relief noted hereinabove.
In
response to the petition, an affidavit in-reply has been filed on
behalf of the respondent No.5 Additional Director, Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, Gandhidham, controverting the averments made
in the petition. It is stated that on detailed inquiry,
investigation and re-testing of the samples taken by the DRI, it is
revealed that the goods under seizure are “Refined Cottonseed
Oil of Non-Edible Grade”. It is stated that a show cause
notice dated 14.12.2010 has been issued to the petitioner pursuant
to the seizure and inquiry. That the Port Health Officer, Kandla
had drawn four representative samples from four different
compartment vessels and sent the same to the Food & Drugs
Laboratory, Vadodara, which had issued four test reports, stating
that the samples do not conform to the standards and provisions laid
down under the PFA Rules for Cottonseed Oil on account of iodine
values being more than the prescribed limit and very low acid value
in comparison to other cottonseed oil. Thereafter, counter part
samples were sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune, and the
result of the analysis of the Central Food Laboratory, Pune,
indicates that the samples do not conform to the standards and
provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules, 1955 (PFA Rules), for cottonseed seed oil on account of high
acid values. According to the respondents, the petitioners had
intentionally declared the goods as “fit for human consumption
after further refining” to show that the imported goods were
of non-edible grade and would be made edible after further refining
and to avail of the benefit of Circular No.29/97-Cus dated
31.07.1997 which defines the term “vegetable oils of edible
grade” as the vegetable oils which are fit for human
consumption at the time of import and the vegetable oils which are
fit for human consumption after further processing. It is also
stated that the test reports issued by the Central Excise &
Customs Laboratory, Vadodara, and the Customs Laboratory, Kandla,
showed that the subject goods were Refined Cottonseed Oil of Edible
Grade and that gross variation was found in respect of acid values
of the subject goods determined by the Food & Drugs Laboratory,
Vadodara and Central Food Laboratory, Pune. That counter part sample
drawn under panchnama dated 22.9.2010 was sent to Central Food
Laboratory, Pune, for re-testing and vide report dated 24.10.2010,
it was found that the sample contained higher iodine value and
Bellier Test was less than 19.0 Degree Centigrade and hence, the
same did not conform to the standards of Cottonseed Oil as per PFA
Rules. It is, accordingly, stated that in the light of the said test
report, it is amply clear that the subject goods are “Refined
Cottonseed Oil of Non-Edible Grade”.
In
reply to the submission that the representations made by the
petitioner have not been decided, it is stated that pursuant
to the interim order of this Court in Special Civil Application
No.12386 of 2006 filed by M/s Teej Impex Pvt.Ltd., the CBEC, New
Delhi, had issued Circular No.28/2006-Cus., dated 6.11.2006, in
consultation with the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
instructing that all the consignments of edible/food products which
fail PHO testing shall be re-exported or destroyed and permission
for re-processing should not be allowed suo
motu
by the Commissioners. In view of the said instructions, the Customs
authorities do not have any discretionary power to grant provisional
release of the edible/food products, which fail the PHO testing.
Therefore, the Department could not accede to the
various representations made by the petitioner for grant of
provisional release of the goods in question.
Mr.
K. B. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner
invited attention to the various reports which have been received by
the concerned authorities in relation to the samples taken by them,
to submit that there are wide variations in the different reports.
Whereas, the initial inquiry reports state that the goods are
refined Cottonseed Oil (Edible Grade) which conform to the PFA
standards, subsequent reports of the Central Food Laboratory, Pune,
indicate that the goods in question do not meet with the PFA
standards. It was submitted that in the show cause notice, the
respondents have come out with a new case that the goods are Refined
Cottonseed Oil of Non-Edible Grade, whereas none of the reports in
question indicate that the goods in question are of Non-Edible
Grade.
Inviting
attention to the unreported decision of this Court in the case of
M/s Teej Impex Pvt. Ltd., through Shri Vijay Joshi, Commissioner of
Customs and others, rendered on 4.12.2006 in Special Civil
Application No.12386 of 2006, it was submitted that in a similar set
of facts, this Court has granted permission for re-processing the
goods by issuing certain directions taking care of the interests of
the revenue. It was submitted that the facts of the present case
being similar to the facts of the said case, similar directions are
required to be issued to the respondents subject to such conditions
as may be deemed fit by this Court. Various other contentions have
been also been advanced as regards the variations in the reports of
different laboratories as well as the provisions of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) and the Rules framed
thereunder. However, considering the view that the Court is
inclined to take in the matter, it is not necessary to set out the
said contentions in detail.
The
petition was opposed by Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents, who invited attention to the
averments made in the affidavit in-reply as well as the reports
submitted by the Central Food Laboratory, Pune and more
particularly, the last report dated 24.10.2010 of the Director,
Central Food Laboratory, Pune, which indicates that iodine value is
higher than the limit prescribed under the PFA Rules and Bellier
test is lower than the limit prescribed under the said Rules. It was
submitted that the reports indicate that the goods in question are
refined cotton seed oil and considering the iodine content of the
goods in question, the goods are non-edible in nature, inasmuch as
food which has a high iodine content and even otherwise does not
meet with the PFA standards, cannot be said to be of edible grade.
Inviting attention to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section
13 of the PFA Act, it was submitted that the certificate issued by
the Director of Central Food Laboratory under sub-section 2B
supersedes the report given by the public analyst under sub-section
(1) and as such, the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Pune,
would supersede all other reports and therefore, is the only report
on which reliance can be placed. It was submitted that the subject
goods being non-edible and having failed on PFA parameters, cannot
be released provisionally in the light of Circular No.28/2006-Cus.
dated 6.11.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise &
Customs. Referring to the contents of the said Circular, it was
submitted that in the present case, the food articles in question
having been imported in the country and not found to be conforming
to the prescribed standards, the customs authority suo motu would
not be in a position to release the food articles for re-processing.
In the light of the Circular No.58/2001-Cus. Dated 25.10.2001, all
the consignments of edible/food products, which fail on PHO testing,
are required to be re-exported or destroyed. Hence, only
consignments of edible/food products which conform to the provisions
of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules made
thereunder are allowed to be imported into India and the
consignments which do not conform to the provisions of the PFA Act
and the PFA Rules are required to be dealt with in the manner
prescribed in Circular No.58/2001-Cus. Dated 25.10.2001 and as such,
the goods in question are required to be re-exported or destroyed.
Dealing
with the last contention, Mr. K.B. Trivedi, learned counsel placed
reliance upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Commissioner
of Customs (Import), Raigad v. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.,
2007 (218) ELT 336 (Bom.) wherein the Court has held that the fact
that section 18 of the PFA Act empowers the Court to allow clearance
of the domestic goods subject to reprocessing, cannot be a mere
ground to hold that the Tribunal constituted under the Customs Act
cannot allow redemption of confiscated goods subject to
reprocessing. It was held that in the absence of any bar under the
Customs Act or the PFA Act, the Tribunal in
an appropriate case is entitled to allow redemption of confiscated
goods subject to reprocessing. It was accordingly, submitted that
there is no bar to the Court allowing release of the goods subject
to reprocessing.
Insofar
as the contention raised by the revenue by placing reliance upon
sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act is concerned, it was
submitted that the said provision would be applicable only in case
where a sample has been sent to the concerned Central Food
Laboratory by the Court as contemplated under sub-section (2) of the
said provision. That in the facts of the present case, the said
provision would not be applicable. Further, inviting attention to
the provisions of section 6 of the PFA Act, it was pointed out that
the present case falls within the ambit of sub-section (1) of
section 6 of the Act and as such, the laboratory specified for the
purpose of carrying out the functions under the Act would be the
Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, as provided under Table-I below
Rule 3 of the PFA Rules and that the Central Food Laboratory, Pune,
which finds place in Table-II below Rule 3 of the Rules is a
laboratory specified for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section
6 of the Act.
On
a perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as
considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is apparent that the main relief claimed in the
petition is that the goods in question be permitted to be
reprocessed and released subject to their conforming to the PFA
standards on such conditions as may be deemed fit by this court.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of this High Court in the case
M/s Teej Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Court in a case where
the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (Vanaspati Ghee) was found to be not
conforming to the standards of vanaspati as per PFA Rules, and there
were conflicting reports, one stating that the goods conformed to
the PFA Rules and another stating that the same did not conform to
the PFA Rules, upon considering the perishable nature of the goods
as well as the fact that the confiscated goods which were worth
crores of rupees, could be destroyed, and nobody would be benefited
by it, took support of the above referred Circular No.28/2006 and
permitted reprocessing of the goods subject to certain conditions.
The Court took care to ensure that firstly there was an expert
opinion to the effect that after reprocessing the vanaspati ghee
would be fit for human consumption conforming to the standards laid
down in the PFA Rules.
In
the aforesaid backdrop, examining the facts of the present case, a
perusal of the various reports given by the different laboratories
indicates that there are wide variations in the reports received
from different laboratories. The Chemical Examiner, Customs
Laboratory, Kandla, gave his test report dated 12.08.2010 stating
that the goods in question were cotton seed oil having acid value =
0.04 and Iodine value =108.8. The report dated 12.08.2010 of the
Gujarat Laboratory is to the effect that the sample conforms with
prescribed quality in respect of PFA Rules. The test reports of the
Food & Drugs Laboratory, Vadodara, dated 12.8.2010 indicate that
the sample is edible oil falling under Item No.A.17.02 of the PFA
Rules. The report further says that the sample does not conform to
the standards and provisions laid down under the PFA Rules in
respect of iodine value. (The iodine value ranges from 113.85 to
115.23, the normal range being 98 to 112.) As per the said report
the result of analysis of sample also shows very low acid value in
comparison of other crude cottonseed oil. The test reports of the
Central Food Laboratory, Pune, dated 21.8.2010 are to the effect
that the sample does not conform to the standards of cottonseed oil
as per the PFA Rules. The test reports indicate that the acid value
is higher than permissible. Pursuant to the aforesaid reports of the
CFL, Pune, the Port Health Officer, Kandla has forwarded
communication dated 30.8.2010 to the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Port, wherein it is stated that the Director, CFL, Pune, is of the
opinion that the sample does not conform to the standards and
provisions as laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules, 1955 for Cottonseed Oil on account of Acid Value of 0.65%
(0.5). On discussion with the Chief Technical Officer, CFL, Pune,
the oil can be used for human consumption, only after proper and
thorough cleaning, refining and conforming to the standards as laid
down under the Item A-17.15 of PFA Rules, 1955. During this period,
the cargo must be under the custody of Customs and Central Excise.
On completion of the refining, a sample has to be sent for analysis
and on conformation to the PFA standards, the cargo must be released
for human consumption. The test reports of the Chemical Analyzer,
Central Excise & Customs Laboratory, dated 29.9.2010 indicate
that the values obtained for the sample are within the limits
mentioned for Cottonseed Oil Refined Grade (Edible Grade). There are
no deviations observed in the standards prescribed under the PFA Act
for refined edible grade cottonseed oil. The test reports of the
Chemical Examiner, Grade I, Customs House Laboratory, Kandla,
indicate that the sample does not require further refining or other
treatment to make it edible, because other tested parameters already
are in the range of refined cottonseed oil of edible grade as per
17.15 of Appendix-B of the PFA Act, 1954. It is further stated in
the note that all the parameters of sample are already in the
mandatory limit of refined cottonseed oil of edible grade as per PFA
Act, 1954. Therefore, this product does not require further
refining/ treatment in order to fulfill any further mandatory
requirement of PFA quantitatively. The certificate of analysis dated
24.10.2010 of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, indicates that
the sample shows iodine value more than 112.0, Bellier test less
than 190 degree centigrade and hence, does not conform to the
standards of cottonseed oil as per PFA Rules as per tests performed.
(The iodine value indicated in the said report is 114.78).
As
noted hereinabove, the certificate of analysis issued by the
Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune, indicates that Iodine value
is more than 112.0 and that Bellier test is less than the prescribed
standard. However, from the said report it is not clear as to
whether the goods in question are of non-edible grade, as is sought
to be contended on behalf of the respondents, or as to whether the
goods can be made fit for human consumption upon reprocessing. In
support of the contention that the goods in question are of
non-edible grade, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondents has placed reliance upon various parameters provided
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, to submit that
since the sample does not meet with the requirements laid down there
under, the same are of non-edible grade. However, since show cause
notice has already been issued to the petitioner and dealing with
the said contention would amount to touching the merits of the case,
the Court has refrained from dealing with the said contention.
As
noted hereinabove, the record of the case as placed before this
Court by way of affidavit in reply of the respondent No.5 makes it
amply clear that there are conflicting reports of different
laboratories and wide variations in the reports. The goods in
question, by their very nature are perishable goods and as such if
the same are retained in the same state till the pendency of the
proceedings before the concerned authorities, the goods would be
likely to spoil. Considering the quantity and the cost of the
subject goods, if the goods are detained for a long period the same
would cause immense financial loss to the petitioner and would not
benefit any party. In the circumstances, the Court is of the view
that the interests of justice would be served by following the
decision of this High Court in the case of M/s Teej Impex Pvt. Ltd
and disposing of the petition in the terms mentioned hereinafter and
granting permission for re-processing of goods after obtaining an
expert’s opinion as to whether after re-processing, the goods in
question will be fit for human consumption conforming to the
standards as laid down under the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Moreover, as regards the Central Food Laboratory to which the sample
should be sent for testing is concerned, on a perusal of the
provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the PFA Rules, this Court is
of the view that as to whether the Central Food Laboratory, Pune,
is a laboratory specified for the purposes of subsection (1) of
section 6 of the PFA Act is a matter of interpretation, whereas the
Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, clearly is a laboratory specified
for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the PFA, Act. In
the circumstances, without delving into the question as regards
whether or not the Central Food Laboratory, Pune is a Laboratory
specified for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the
PFA Act, the ends of justice would be met if the samples are sent
for testing to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, as specified
under Table-I of Rule 3 of the PFA Rules.
In
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is
disposed of in the following terms:
The
respondents-authorities
are directed as under:
To
send samples of the subject goods seized to the Central Food
Laboratory, Mysore for testing for opinion as to whether, after
re-processing, the goods in question will be fit for human
consumption conforming to the standards of cottonseed oil prescribed
in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. This shall be
done within one week from the date of receipt of this order. The
Laboratory shall submit report within one week on receipt of the
sample.
On
receipt of the report, if the report is in the affirmative, i.e.,
the Laboratory finds that, after re-processing, the goods will be
fit for human consumption conforming to the standards of cottonseed
oil prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955,
then the petitioner shall be permitted to reprocess the goods within
one week from the date of receipt of the report.
After
reprocessing of the goods, the respondents shall send samples of the
re-processed goods again to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore ,for
testing as to whether the re-processed goods are fit for human
consumption conforming to the standards of cottonseed oil prescribed
in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Laboratory
shall submit report within one week of the receipt of the sample. If
the Laboratory submits the report in favour of the petitioner, the
goods shall not be detained on this ground and shall be released in
accordance with law;
If
either of the reports is against the petitioner, then the
respondents shall take appropriate steps under the provisions of the
Customs Act.
With
the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.
It
is clarified that the aforesaid directions shall be without
prejudice to the rights of either of the parties in the adjudication
proceedings and the release of goods pursuant to the aforesaid
directions shall be subject to the final order that may be passed in
the adjudication proceedings.
Since
the aforesaid directions have been issued merely to obviate the
hardships that could be caused to the petitioner on account of an
irreversible situation arising in case the petitioner finally
succeeds in the adjudication proceedings, it is clarified that the
petitioner shall not claim any equity based on this order.
Direct
service is permitted.
[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]
[H.B.ANTANI,
J.]
parmar*
Top