Patna High Court
Cachar Supari Centre And Anr vs The Union Of India And Ors on 25 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4165 of 2015
======================================================
1. Cachar Supari Centre and Anr son of Late Sudhanshu Roy, resident of East
Bazar, P.s. Karimganj, District Karimganj, Assam.
2. Bikaner Assam Road Lines India Ltd. through its Director Sushil Kumar
Daga, son of Shri Bhawar Lal Daga, resident of H B Road, Fancy Bazar, P.S.
Paan Bazar, District Guwahati, Assam.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Commissioner of Customs Preventive, 4th floor, Central Revenue
Building Beer Chand Patel Path
3. The Additional Commissioner cum Adjudication authority, 4th floor Central
Revenue Building Beer Ch
4. The Assistent Commissioner, Preventive, Customs Head Quarter, 4th floor
Central Revenue Building
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG
Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC Customs
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 25-08-2025
In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the
following relief(s):-
"For issuance of writ of certitori for
quashing of the order dated 13.02.2015 passed
by Respondent No. 1 in Custom Appeal No.
962-963/2014
whereby and whereunder the
appeals of the petitioners filed under Section
128 of Customs Act, 1962 has been dismissed."
Patna High Court CWJC No.4165 of 2015 dt.25-08-2025
2. Petitioner No. 1, M/s Cachar Supari Centre,
Karimganj was the consigner of the goods and Petitioner No. 2,
M/s Bikaner Assam Road Lines India Limited, Guwahati was
entrusted for transportation of betelnuts weighing 7200 KGs.
valued at Rs. 7,20,000/-. It was seized by the customs authority
under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was being
transported through M/s Bikaner Assam Road Lines India Limited,
Guwahati. At a given point of time, M/s Bikaner Assam Road
Lines India Limited, Guwahati claimed provisional release of the
goods and it was not materialized. Resultantly, he has invoked
remedy before this Court. Thereafter, the concerned authorities
have proceeded to release goods provisionally after completion of
various formalities. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the
adjudicatory authority's order dated 31.03.2013 preferred appeal
before the appellate authority on 01.07.2013. Initially, it was
rejected on the ground of delay, thereafter, at the behest of this
Court's direction, the appeal filed by the petitioners was
reconsidered on merit and it was rejected on 13.02.2015, hence,
the present petition. Perusal of the appellate authority's order dated
13.02.2015 read with the grounds of appeal, it is evident that
appellate authority has failed to consider each of the grounds in
support of the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners. Perusal of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4165 of 2015 dt.25-08-2025
the appellate authority's order, it is evident that appellate authority
on his own drawn proceedings without referring to each of the
contentions raised by the petitioners in his memorandum of appeal.
Resultantly, the very object of filing appeal before the appellate
authority and in non-consideration would defeat the right of the
petitioners. We have to take note of the fact that appellate authority
is exercising quasi judicial power under the Customs Act, 1962.
Further, whatever the action taken by the appellate authority is
subject matter of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Therefore, appellate authority should have passed
reasoned and speaking order after considering each of the
contentions raised by the petitioner in his memorandum of appeal.
3. Having regard to these facts and circumstances and
the fact that time and again Courts have held that quasi judicial
authorities are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order after
considering each of the contentions, wherever judicial review is
warranted. In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case,
the petitioners have made out a case so as to interfere with the
appellate authority's order dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure-9) and it is
set aside. Matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass
fresh order after due consideration of each of the contentions
raised in the memorandum of appeal. Petitioners are permitted to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4165 of 2015 dt.25-08-2025
urge additional grounds, if any, within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the appellate authority
is hereby directed to consider each of the contentions raised by the
petitioners in memorandum of appeal and additional grounds, if
any, thereafter proceed to pass a speaking order. Petitioners or his
representative may be heard in person through oral hearing. Such a
date of oral hearing shall be made known to the petitioners within
fifteen days in advance.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ
petition stands allowed in part.
5. We have made it clear that we have not passed any
orders on merit. The same shall be taken note of by the appellate
authority.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date N/A
