Kerala High Court
Sri. Asharudheenmannan Kandy vs Assistant Director(Plaint ... on 17 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.168 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25024/2020(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
SRI. ASHARUDHEENMANNAN KANDY,
AGED 66 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, M/S.BROTHERS TRADE LINKS, DOOR NO.9/243,
POOVAMBAYI, KINALOOR P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 612,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNY HOLDER, SHRI.AHAMMED
KOYA MANNAN KANDY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.BALAGOPAL
SMT.R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR(PLAINT PROTECTION OFFICER)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PLANT QUARANTINE STATION, WILLINGDON
ISLAND, COCHIN, PIN - 682 003.
2 JOINT SECRETARY (PP AND RFS)
247-A, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COOPERATION AND FARMERS
WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRISHI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA
PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN, PIN - 682 009.
R1-2 BY SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.V., CGC
R3 BY ADV. SMT.THANUJA ROSHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.168/2021
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of February 2021
S.V. Bhatti, J.
The petitioner is the appellant. The appellant filed W.P.(C)
No.25024/2020 challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the 2 nd
respondent as illegal and as an order failing to exercise the
discretion available in this behalf to the 2 nd respondent and also as
an order omitting to consider the relevant documents available.
2. The petitioner imported wooden (teak) furniture from
Indonesia. Ext.P2 is the Bill of Entry. The clearance of consignment
covered by Ext.P2 was not granted for want of Phytosanitary
Certificate from the country of origin. The appellant claiming
relaxation, filed Ext.P3 application before the 2 nd respondent. The
principal objection of the writ petitioner against Ext.P4 order, is
that it failed to take note of Ext.P9, manifest, and the nature of
consignment covered by Ext.P2. The ground by referring to which
W.A. No.168/2021
Ext.P4 has been issued may not survive for consideration, if the
other two aspects adverted to above are considered by the 2 nd
respondent. Stated briefly, the gist of the complaint is that the
relaxation claimed by the appellant was rejected on a monotonous
consideration of the application and without appreciating the
nature of consignment.
3. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
parties and perused the record. We are of the view that the decision
in Ext.P4 refers to one circumstance, namely alleged past conduct of
the appellant. The appellant states that it has a case on the grant of
relaxation by looking at the nature of consignment, and whether, as
a matter of fact, the certificate insisted upon by the appellant is
warranted or not. Undisputably, this perspective of the case is not
considered by the respondents.
4. Advocate Balagopal made serious attempts for a
favourable finding from this Court by inviting our attention to all
the exhibits. We are persuaded not to express a view at this stage of
W.A. No.168/2021
the matter, particularly for the view we are proposing to take on
Ext.P4.
5. We are of the view that Ext.P4 is unsustainable, liable to
be set aside, and hence is set aside. The matter is remitted to 2 nd
respondent for consideration and disposal within three weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant is given
liberty to file additional representation by enclosing a copy of this
judgment within three weeks from today.
The Writ Appeal is allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI
JUDGE
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jjj
