MUMBAI: In a matter where goods not prohibited by law were seized by excise officials at JNPT, Bombay high court on Tuesday directed the State Additional Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry into the role of officials instrumental in the seizure and thus ‘responsible’ in defeating court orders.
Directing the release of ethanol seized on December 11, the HC said that the probe by the ACS must also be into role of private individuals at whose behest such seizure was undertaken to restore faith of business persons in rule of law directed division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain.“We cannot countenance the officers of the Excise Department acting in such illegal and highhanded manner. There are rules and regulations pertaining to seizure, they cannot be a party to any vilification campaign and to damage the business standing and reputation of the traders, in the manner in which the concerned Excise Officials have resorted in the present case,” said the bench.
K Raj & Company had filed a petition to assail the seizure of the its goods while they were being transported as cleared from the JNPT, in pursuance of the HC order dated 4 November 2023.
The HC had earlier held that Ethanol in no manner fell under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, so that the State Excise Authorities could exercise any jurisdiction.
The HC heard Prakash Shah counsel for the petitioner, alleging illegal seizure and had asked additional solicitor general Shruti Vyas for centre’s stand. Before Vyas could make her submissions, the HC noted with “grave surprise” the appearance of two intervenors in support of the seizure.
One intervener represented by advocate Brijesh Pathak, was MSB Chemical Limited, through its Vice President (Operations)Shailendra Save. The other intervenor is represented by Sham Valve, Advocate who represents Laboratory Solutions India, which is stated to be an HUF through its Karta Hemanshu Rach, having its office at Princess street, Mumbai,
the HC order said.
“The contentions on behalf of the intervenors as urged before us, in supporting the seizure is shocking to say the least, namely that the imports of the ethanol by the petitioner is adversely affecting the intervenors business interest, as if to contend that, the seizure in question at the hands of the Excise Officers is at the behest of such persons,”the HC bench stated expressing its that the intervention took place “in a short span of two hours” following the proceedings that morning.
The HC after hearing the matter observed that the officers who seized the goods “appears to have not acted bonafide and as the law would mandate them to act.” “Prima facie they appear to have abused the powers vested in them under the Bombay
Prohibition Act, in taking such brazen illegal action against the petitioners, contrary to the orders passed by this Court in permitting clearance and trading in the goods by declaring that the goods in question do not fall under the purview of the Bombay Prohibition Act,” the HC said adding that the “petitioners stand maligned in the eyes of the public, apart from damaging
of their business interest and the public image the petitioner would wield. Such a situation as brought about by the illegal seizure at the hands of the Excise officers would amount to not only a gross illegality bring about a situation of absolute lawlessness in exercise of solemn public duties by such officials.”
The HC added, “Once there were orders passed by this Court and the same were binding, it was not permissible for the State Excise officers that without verification of all materials, they could resort to such drastic actions as assailed by the petitioners, merely for the reason that they have been conferred powers under the Bombay Prohibition Act. When law confers such drastic powers on the officers, it would also cast an onerous duty, for such powers to be exercised with great caution and responsibility, and only in public interest. As noted above in the facts of the case there can be no reason for the Excise officials to resort to the impugned actions, except to cater to the private interest of third parties. Any public servant vested with such serious powers as conferred on them in law, cannot be expected to abuse such powers.”
The HC further held, “cannot countenance the officers of the Excise Department acting in such illegal and highhanded manner. There are rules and regulations pertaining to seizure, they cannot be a party to any vilification campaign and to damage the business standing and reputation of the traders, in the manner in which the concerned Excise Officials have resorted in the present case, as if the petitioners’ case was an established case of the petitioners dealing with any contraband. It was certainly most objectionable for the officers to pose themselves in photographs in projecting that the petitioners were dealing in prohibited goods. This is certainly neither a part of their duties, nor permissible under the Bombay Prohibition Act or under the Rules under which they were supposed to act.”
When it was a clear case that the goods in question were not prohibited goods and which were being dealt by the petitioners lawfully, the Excise Officials disregarding all canons of law, could not have painted the petitioners as some criminals.
The above facts raises a very serious concerns in regard to the actions of the concerned Excise officials which, in our prima facie opinion, are worrisome to the administration apart from being serious. If as to what we have expressed, even to a limited extent is true and correct, we would doubt whether the concerned officers are even fit to be called as public servants and continue in Government service. In our opinion, any highhanded and illegal approach on the part of such officials, infringing the fundamental rights of the citizens is required to be enquired and taken to the logical conclusion by holding an appropriate inquiry as the law would mandate.
“In the event, the Additional Chief Secretary is of the opinion that there is sufficient material in regard to the involvement of the concerned officials,” he shall initiate appropriate actions, civil and criminal, against them, the HC directed.
Directing the release of ethanol seized on December 11, the HC said that the probe by the ACS must also be into role of private individuals at whose behest such seizure was undertaken to restore faith of business persons in rule of law directed division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain.“We cannot countenance the officers of the Excise Department acting in such illegal and highhanded manner. There are rules and regulations pertaining to seizure, they cannot be a party to any vilification campaign and to damage the business standing and reputation of the traders, in the manner in which the concerned Excise Officials have resorted in the present case,” said the bench.
K Raj & Company had filed a petition to assail the seizure of the its goods while they were being transported as cleared from the JNPT, in pursuance of the HC order dated 4 November 2023.
The HC had earlier held that Ethanol in no manner fell under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, so that the State Excise Authorities could exercise any jurisdiction.
The HC heard Prakash Shah counsel for the petitioner, alleging illegal seizure and had asked additional solicitor general Shruti Vyas for centre’s stand. Before Vyas could make her submissions, the HC noted with “grave surprise” the appearance of two intervenors in support of the seizure.
One intervener represented by advocate Brijesh Pathak, was MSB Chemical Limited, through its Vice President (Operations)Shailendra Save. The other intervenor is represented by Sham Valve, Advocate who represents Laboratory Solutions India, which is stated to be an HUF through its Karta Hemanshu Rach, having its office at Princess street, Mumbai,
the HC order said.
“The contentions on behalf of the intervenors as urged before us, in supporting the seizure is shocking to say the least, namely that the imports of the ethanol by the petitioner is adversely affecting the intervenors business interest, as if to contend that, the seizure in question at the hands of the Excise Officers is at the behest of such persons,”the HC bench stated expressing its that the intervention took place “in a short span of two hours” following the proceedings that morning.
The HC after hearing the matter observed that the officers who seized the goods “appears to have not acted bonafide and as the law would mandate them to act.” “Prima facie they appear to have abused the powers vested in them under the Bombay
Prohibition Act, in taking such brazen illegal action against the petitioners, contrary to the orders passed by this Court in permitting clearance and trading in the goods by declaring that the goods in question do not fall under the purview of the Bombay Prohibition Act,” the HC said adding that the “petitioners stand maligned in the eyes of the public, apart from damaging
of their business interest and the public image the petitioner would wield. Such a situation as brought about by the illegal seizure at the hands of the Excise officers would amount to not only a gross illegality bring about a situation of absolute lawlessness in exercise of solemn public duties by such officials.”
The HC added, “Once there were orders passed by this Court and the same were binding, it was not permissible for the State Excise officers that without verification of all materials, they could resort to such drastic actions as assailed by the petitioners, merely for the reason that they have been conferred powers under the Bombay Prohibition Act. When law confers such drastic powers on the officers, it would also cast an onerous duty, for such powers to be exercised with great caution and responsibility, and only in public interest. As noted above in the facts of the case there can be no reason for the Excise officials to resort to the impugned actions, except to cater to the private interest of third parties. Any public servant vested with such serious powers as conferred on them in law, cannot be expected to abuse such powers.”
The HC further held, “cannot countenance the officers of the Excise Department acting in such illegal and highhanded manner. There are rules and regulations pertaining to seizure, they cannot be a party to any vilification campaign and to damage the business standing and reputation of the traders, in the manner in which the concerned Excise Officials have resorted in the present case, as if the petitioners’ case was an established case of the petitioners dealing with any contraband. It was certainly most objectionable for the officers to pose themselves in photographs in projecting that the petitioners were dealing in prohibited goods. This is certainly neither a part of their duties, nor permissible under the Bombay Prohibition Act or under the Rules under which they were supposed to act.”
When it was a clear case that the goods in question were not prohibited goods and which were being dealt by the petitioners lawfully, the Excise Officials disregarding all canons of law, could not have painted the petitioners as some criminals.
The above facts raises a very serious concerns in regard to the actions of the concerned Excise officials which, in our prima facie opinion, are worrisome to the administration apart from being serious. If as to what we have expressed, even to a limited extent is true and correct, we would doubt whether the concerned officers are even fit to be called as public servants and continue in Government service. In our opinion, any highhanded and illegal approach on the part of such officials, infringing the fundamental rights of the citizens is required to be enquired and taken to the logical conclusion by holding an appropriate inquiry as the law would mandate.
“In the event, the Additional Chief Secretary is of the opinion that there is sufficient material in regard to the involvement of the concerned officials,” he shall initiate appropriate actions, civil and criminal, against them, the HC directed.
About Post Author
