Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Gourav Bagla vs Union Of India And Others on 28 July, 2023
28th July,
2023
(AK)
25
W.P.A 17485 of 2023
Gourav Bagla
Vs.
Union of India and others
Mr. Mainak Bose
Ms. Arunima Lala
Mr. Pradeep Kumar
Mr. Subhmoy Patra
Mr. Jetinder Das
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee
Ms. Sarda Sha
...for the Union of India.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that, by virtue of the impugned Office
Memorandum dated June 16, 2023, the Directorate of
Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, under the
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, Government
of India has reverted back to a communication dated May
20, 2019, obliterating the effect of a subsequent Office
Memorandum dated May 17, 2023, on the basis of which
the petitioner and several other timber merchants have
already acted.
It is contended that, by an initial Notification dated
October 13, 2022, in Chapter-II of Plant Quarantine
(Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003, after the
existing entries relating to Clause 5 thereof, it was added
2
that in case of consignments requiring pre-shipment
fumigation with MBr originating from countries which
have phased out the use of MBr for quarantine and pre-
shipment purposes, the consignment shall be released
after charging the normal inspection fee.
The NPPO of the country would be required to
submit relevant documents to NPPO India to establish
phased out country status.
The NPPO India was to notify the list, which would
be updated regularly, based on the information received.
Subsequently, on May 17, 2023, an Office
Memorandum was released, along with a list of phased
out countries.
Suriname, one of the countries featuring in the said
list, has had dealings with the petitioner and imported
timber from the said country by the petitioners is, at
present, lying frozen in transit.
However, by the subsequent impugned Notification,
it was indicated that the Office Memorandum dated May
17, 2023 would be discontinued till August 31, 2023, that
is, the outer limit given to the relevant countries to
furnish all relevant documents to establish their phased
out status.
It is submitted that since the petitioner has already
acted upon the May 17, 2023 Notification and has
invested substantial amounts in terms thereof, the said
3
Notification would adversely affect the interest of the
petitioner, since the petitioner now would have to pay at
least five times the amount which the petitioner otherwise
would have to pay, for even bringing in the timber which
was imported on the assurance of concession given in the
Notification dated May 17, 2023.
Learned senior counsel also places reliance on
several judgments of learned Single Judges, of this court
as well as the Gujarat High Court, where, under similar
circumstances, the operation of the impugned notice was
stayed.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is
seen that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie
case for hearing the writ petition on its merits.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to file
their affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks from date.
Reply, if any, shall be filed within one week thereafter.
The matter shall be listed in the monthly list of
September, 2023 for hearing.
The respondents shall, till disposal of the writ
petition, permit the members of the petitioner to clear his
consignment(s) of timber from the Plant Protection and
Warranty Department, whose consignment from the
country of origin was shipped on board prior to issuance
of the Office Memorandum dated June 16, 2023 by
respondent no.2, and from the countries which are also
recognized by respondents as methyl bromide phased out
countries vide Office Memorandum dated May 17, 2023,
without any penalty and/or any additional fees.
However, the above order would be subject to the
petitioner filing an undertaking in the concerned
department of this Court, by way of an affidavit within a
week from date to the effect that the petitioner shall be
ready and willing to pay additional fees/charges/penalty,
subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. An
advance copy of the affidavit shall be handed over to the
learned advocate-on-record appearing for the Union of
India prior to filing of the same.
In default of filing such affidavit, however, the
interim order would automatically stand revoked without
further reference to court.
The interim order passed herein shall also abide by
the outcome of the writ petition.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
