Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an advocate by occupation, had represented an appellant in a customs appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure-D). In paragraph 8 of that order, the Commissioner made certain observations stating that the objective of imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was to impress upon the appellant to be more careful in future and to do justice to their role and duties rather than take shelter behind technicalities and advocates who think they can defend the indefensible by giving their own skewed understanding of the law and misguiding appellants. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by these remarks, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking expunction of the said observations. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the Commissioner's observations were unwarranted and beyond the scope of the appeal. The court noted that the petitioner was not a party to the appeal and was not given an opportunity to be heard before such remarks were made. The court held that such observations, which cast aspersions on the advocate's professional conduct, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and expunged the offending sentence from paragraph 8 of the Commissioner's order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Restraint - Expunction of Adverse Remarks - The High Court held that observations casting aspersions on an advocate's conduct, made without affording an opportunity of hearing, are unwarranted and liable to be expunged - The Commissioner's remarks that the advocate misguides appellants and takes shelter behind technicalities were beyond the scope of the appeal and violated principles of natural justice (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was justified in making adverse observations against the advocate (petitioner) in the appellate order, and whether such observations should be expunged.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered that the offending sentence in paragraph 8 of the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in Appeal No.206/2021 be expunged.
Law Points
- Judicial restraint
- expunction of adverse remarks
- natural justice
- advocate's right to practice
- scope of appellate authority's observations
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (11) 3
Writ Petition No.16518 of 2021 (GM-RES)
Sri. Sourabh R K (for petitioner), Smt. Pratibha R (CGC for R1), Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi (for R2)
Union of India, The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking expunction of adverse observations made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against the petitioner-advocate in an appellate order.
Remedy Sought
Expunction of the observation in paragraph 8 of the order dated 16.03.2021 in Appeal No.206/2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to the extent of the sentence: 'the objective of imposing a penalty of Rs.15000/- is only to impress upon the appellant that they ought to be more careful in future and do justice to their role and duties rather than take shelter behind technicalities and advocates who think they can defend the indefensible by giving their own skewed understanding of the law and misguiding appellants.'
Filing Reason
The petitioner, an advocate, was aggrieved by the adverse remarks made against him in the appellate order without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.03.2021 in Appeal No.206/2021, which contained the impugned observations.
Issues
Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was justified in making adverse observations against the advocate in the appellate order.
Whether such observations should be expunged as they were made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the advocate.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the observations were unwarranted and beyond the scope of the appeal, and that they cast aspersions on his professional conduct without any opportunity of hearing.
The respondents did not seriously oppose the expunction, as the remarks were not necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
Adverse remarks against an advocate, made without affording an opportunity of hearing and beyond the scope of the proceedings, are unwarranted and liable to be expunged to protect the advocate's professional reputation and ensure judicial restraint.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner is an advocate by occupation; he had appeared for the appellant in appeal vide A.No. 279/2019 CUS(B-Air); the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide order dated 16.03.2021 at Annexure-D dismissed the appeal; in the course of order, the Commissioner has made certain observations at para 8 therein...
The objective of imposing a penalty of Rs.15000/- is only to impress upon the appellant that they ought to be more careful in future and do justice to their role and duties rather than take shelter behind technicalities and advocates who think they can defend the indefensible by giving their own skewed understanding of the law and misguiding appellants.
Procedural History
The petitioner-advocate appeared for an appellant in a customs appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 16.03.2021 and made adverse observations against the advocate in paragraph 8 of the order. The advocate then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka seeking expunction of those observations. The High Court heard the matter on 10.11.2021 and allowed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
