Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an advocate enrolled in the Karnataka State Bar Council, filed a Public Interest Litigation in 2014 challenging an endorsement dated 29.08.2006 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The endorsement pertained to the appointment of special counsel for the department, and the petitioner contended that no minimum qualification was prescribed for such appointments, making Rule 9 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 ultra vires their parent Acts. The High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Justice Ram Mohan Reddy, dismissed the petition primarily on two grounds. First, the petition was filed eight years after the impugned endorsement, suffering from inordinate delay and laches. Second, on merits, the petitioner failed to point out any specific provision in the Customs Act, 1962 or the Central Excise Act, 1944 that was violated by the impugned Rules. The court held that the Rules were not ultra vires and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Delay and Laches - Petition filed eight years after impugned endorsement is liable to be rejected at threshold on ground of inordinate delay and laches (Para 2).
B) Customs Law - Delegated Legislation - Ultra Vires - Rule 9 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 - Petitioner failed to demonstrate any provision in the parent Acts that is violated by the Rules - Held that the Rules are not ultra vires (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 9 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 are ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944 respectively, and whether the impugned endorsement dated 29.08.2006 should be set aside.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, and on merits, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the parent Acts.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Public Interest Litigation
- Ultra vires
- Delegated legislation
- Appointment of special counsel
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (01) 8
Writ Petition No. 53909 of 2014 (GM-RES)PIL
D.H. Waghela, Chief Justice; Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
Sridhar G (for petitioner)
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; Central Board of Excise and Customs
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging the validity of rules regarding appointment of special counsel in customs and excise matters.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the endorsement dated 29.08.2006, declare Rule 9 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 as ultra vires, and frame guidelines for special counsels.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that no minimum qualification is prescribed for appointment as special counsel, making the rules ultra vires.
Issues
Whether the petition suffers from delay and laches?
Whether Rule 9 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 are ultra vires the parent Acts?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned rules are ultra vires as they do not prescribe minimum qualifications for special counsel.
Respondents' arguments not mentioned in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
A petition filed after eight years is barred by delay and laches. The petitioner failed to point out any provision in the Customs Act, 1962 or Central Excise Act, 1944 that is violated by the impugned rules, hence the rules are not ultra vires.
Judgment Excerpts
In the first place, this petition presented eight years after issue of the endorsement, Annexure-B impugned, is liable to be rejected at the threshold, on inordinate delay and laches.
On the merit of the matter, it is asserted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short ‘CBEC’) is a nodal national agency responsible for administering Customs, Excise, Service Tax and Narcotics.
The petitioner has not pointed out any provision in the Customs Act, 1962 or the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is violated by the impugned Rules.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition on 20.11.2014 challenging an endorsement dated 29.08.2006. The petition came up for preliminary hearing before the High Court of Karnataka on 19.01.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Customs Act, 1962:
- Central Excise Act, 1944:
- Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982: Rule 9
- Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001: Rule 12
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
