Kishin S Loungani vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 17242 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
          Friday, the 13th day of August 2021 / 22nd Sravana, 1943

           IA.NO.1/2021 IN RP NO. 27 OF 2021 IN WPC 6312/2020(L)




PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

     KISHIN S LOUNGANI AGED 74 YEARS S/O SHEWARAM LOUNGANI,R/0 201 VILLA
     SWASTIKA, 16TH ROAD,NEAR KHAR GYMKHANA,KHAR WEST, MUMBAI-400052.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

  1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF
     FINANCE,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,   NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
  2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HAVING OFFICE AT CUSTOM HOUSE,
     WILLINGTON ISLAND,COCHIN-682009.

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to clarify the
judgment dated 05-02-2021 in R.P.No. 27/2021 by directing that pending
appeals filed by the Petitioner before the Bangalore Bench of CESTAT being
appeals Nos. c/20005/2020 and C/20305/2020 be directed to the heard by the
Ahmedabad Bench as Bangalore Bench or by such other Bench as may be
consituted by the learned President considering the acute shortage of the
learned Members (Technical) and pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper.
     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this Court's order dated
5-2-2021 in RP and this Court's judgment dated 03-03-2020 in WPC and upon
hearing the arguments of SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN, Advocate for the petitioner in
IA/RP and of ASG for R1 in IA/RP and SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU,STANDING COUNSEL
for respondent 2 in IA/RP, the court passed the following:-



                                                                   P.T.O.
                           AMIT RAWAL, J.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
                          I.A.No.1 of 2021 in
                Review Petition No.27 of 2021 in
                       WP(C) No.6312 of 2020
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 13th day of August, 2021

                               ORDER

The prayer in this application (I.A.No.1 of 2021 dated 9.8.2021) is for clarification in the judgment dated 5.2.2021 in R.P. No.27 of 2021, to the extent that appeal Nos. C/20005/2020 and C/20305/2020 filed by the petitioner before the CESTAT, Bangalore to be heard by the learned Ahmedabad Bench as Bangalore Bench or such other Bench as may be constituted by the President to effectively implement the order and judgment of this Court ibid read with order dated 3.3.2020.

2. The learned ASG takes notice for the respondent.

3. It has been pleaded in the application that earlier as per the order dated 3.3.2020, this court disposed of the Writ Petition by observing as follows:-

"In view of what has been stated above, I.A.1/2021 in R.P.27/21

the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that the appeal of the petitioner pending before the CESTAT at Bangaluru shall be heard by judicial member and a different touring member than the one assigned for the Bangaluru also other than C.I.Mahar, Sanjeev Sreevastava, Sri.P.Venkita Suba Rao respondents in the writ petition before the Supreme Court."

4. The Review application was filed seeking review of the aforesaid judgment on various grounds and after issuing notice on consideration of the matter and also the comments of the Registrar, this Court disposed of the Review Petition. The operative part of order reads as follows:

"In view of the comments of the Registrar, I am of the view that it is not feasible that Mr.Raju, Member (Technical) attached to Ahmadabad, who is perpetually on tour and the matter to be heard while sitting with the Member(Judicial), is also on tour, thus, it would I.A.1/2021 in R.P.27/21

most appropriate and suitable approach, would be, to direct the Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT to decide the appeal through video conference, for the reason, that one of the technical Member i.e., Mr.Raju would be also technical Member of Bangalore Bench. This arrangement is being made keeping the view findings in order dated 3rd March 2020 ibid and the fact that the appeal is pending since long and also the fact that the review petitioner is a senior citizen. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of directing that the appeal pending before CESTAT, Bangalore shall be heard by Ahmedabad Bench through video conference as Bangalore Bench of CESTAT as expeditiously as possible, not later than within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment."

5. As per the contents of the application and the prayer noticed above, no such steps have been taken by I.A.1/2021 in R.P.27/21

Ahmedabad bench to hear the appeal as the Bangalore bench, rather it has been stated that the learned President has been constituting various benches of CESTAT by shuffling the learned members and in particular the learned technical members from one city to the other. At certain times, the learned Members constitute Bench of one city in the pre-lunch session and second city in the post-lunch session.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would not deny the aforementioned averments. Accordingly, I accept the prayer in the application and clarify by directing that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CESTAT, Bangalore be heard by the learned Ahmedabad Bench as Bangalore Bench, or such other Bench as may be constituted by the learned President to effectively implement the order and judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 5.2.2021 read with order dated 3.3.2020, as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE.

dl/

13-08-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar