Delhi High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India And Another on 31 July, 2015
Author: G. Rohini
$~13.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 31.07.2015
+ W.P.(C) 7282/2015 & CM No.13365/2015
MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pahlad S.Sharma and Mr.Mayank
Aggarwal, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JUDGMENT
MS. G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
1. This writ petition by way of public interest litigation is filed with the
following prayers:
"a. Issue a writ/order/direction directing the
Respondents to appoint standing counsels for CBEC
without considering any VIP references and strictly in
accordance with the prescribed rules;
b. Issue a writ/order/direction directing the
Respondents to reveal the names of candidates who have
received VIP references and to disqualify such candidates
who have canvassed for their empanelment from the
empanelment process.
c. Issue writ/order/direction directing the
Respondents to not accept or entertain any VIP
references henceforth in respect of appointment of
standing counsels;"
2. In the light of the pleadings and the documents enclosed, it appears
that the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the procedure being
adopted by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue and the Central Board of Excise & Customs for empanelment of
the senior and junior standing counsels for handling cases of Indirect Taxes
before various High Courts, Tribunals and other Courts. On the basis of the
letter dated 18.06.2015 addressed by the Under Secretary (Legal) to all the
Chief Commissioners of Customs and others in which there was a reference
to the earlier letter dated 07.03.2014 calling for their recommendation for
constitution of panel of standing counsels, it was mentioned that several VIP
references have been received on the subject which have been forwarded to
them from time to time and that the same may be taken note of while
making the recommendations. The contention of the petitioner is that the
same amounts to indulging in canvassing which is impermissible under law.
3. The learned counsel who accepted notice for the respondents on
instructions submitted that the Central Board of Excise & Customs has
already called off the proceedings for empanelment initiated earlier and that
a fresh order dated 10.07.2015 has now been issued calling for applications
for empanelment of the standing counsels. It is also represented that even
under the letter dated 07.03.2014 specific instructions were issued to
examine the applications of the advocates received directly and/or VIP
references on merits for their suitability for empanelment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice
that an identical issue relating to the empanelment of lawyers to be
appointed for prosecuting the cases of the Income Tax Department in this
Court is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.5286/2015 titled Raghubir Singh
v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Delhi and the same
is pending on the file of this Court.
5. Having regard to the fact that the earlier Office Order dated
07.03.2014 in respect of which the petitioner complains that the action of the
respondents in considering the VIP references amounts to indulging in
canvassing has already been withdrawn by the 2nd respondent and
particularly in view of the fact that this court in W.P.(C) No.5286/2015 is
seized of an identical issue, we are not inclined to entertain this petition filed
as public interest litigation. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take
appropriate steps to intervene in the pending writ petition.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
No costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 31, 2015 JAYANT NATH, J
anb
