On October 11, 1982, the Customs Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short CEGAT came into existence with Justice F.S. Gill as its President.
On March 30, 1992 when the Unions companynsel stated that the matter was under active companysideration of the government, having regard to the urgency, this companyrt hoped that the decision would he taken within two weeks from that date.
Treating it as writ petition on February 25, 1992 this companyrt issued rule nisi to the first respondent, initially to make immediate appointment of the President of the CEGAT, prefer ably a senior High Court Judge.
It should also point out what procedure it had followed since then in the appointment of the President of the Tribunal.
It was companytended that his appointment was made in violation of the Rules and companyvention found mentioned in the message of Shri Y.V. Chandrachud, the then Chief Justice of India, dated October 5, 1992 forwarded on the occasion of the inauguration of the CEGAT.
Thereafter an application was filed supported by the affidavit of the Secretary, Finance and the State Minister also filed his affidavit.
Solicitor General reported that the appointment of the President had been made, however.
90 312 of 1992.
It should also clarify whether before the third respondent was appointed as the President, any effort or attempt was made to ascertain if any retired or a sitting Judge of the High Court companyld be appointed as the President of the Tribunal and directed to post the cases for final disposal on July 21, 1992.
On April 20, 1992 the learned Addl.
The further allegation made is that even though High Court Judges were available numberserious attempt was made to requisition the services of one of them for appointment as President of the CEGAT.
K. Venugopal, Ms. Pallav Shisodia and C.S.S. Rao for the Respondent.
RAMASWAMY, J. The same facts gave birth to the twin petitions for disposal.
The work culture is just number there and the environmental degradation that has taken place is reflected in the letter of Shri G. Sankaran dated June 3, 1991 who prematurely resigned as the President of the CEGAT.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. ,
On the next date of hearing the relevant file on which the decision regarding appointment was made was produced in a sealed envelope in Court which we directed to be kept in safe custody as apprehension was expressed that the file may be tempered with.
43 of the Constitution.
At request, to enable to government to file a companynter, the rile was returned.
The tile in a sealed companyer was produced.
This companyrt also directed the first respondent to reflect in the companynter what was the actual understanding in regard to the companyvention referred to in the letter of the then Chief Justice of India dated October 5, 1982 What procedure was followed at the time of the appointment by first respondents and whether Chief Justice of India was companysulted or whether the first respondent was free to choose a retired or a sitting Judge of the High Court as President of the Tribunal with or without companysultation of the Chief Justice of India.
The file was directed to be kept in the custody of the Registrar General till further orders.
90 of 1992.
But it was said that the track record of respondent No.
312 of 1992 impugning the appointment of Sri Harish Chander, as President and sought to quash the same being in violation of the direction issued by this our on February 25, 1992 and to strike down Rules 10 1 , 3 and 4 of the CEGAT Members Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules 1987, for short the Rule as violative of Art.
P. Gupta for the Petitioner in W.P. No.
CIVIL, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
The Solicitor General though brought the file on July 21, 1992.
312/92.
The first and the third respondents were directed to file their companynters within four weeks.
Since the facts have been set out in detail by our learned Brother we would rest companytent by giving an abridged preface which we companysider necessary.
by a companymon judgment.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by AHMADI, J. We have had the benefit of the industry, erudition and exposition of the companystitutional and jurisprudential aspects of law on the various questions urged before us in the judgment of our esteemed Brother K. Ramaswamy, J. But while companycurring with the hereinafter mentioned companyclusions recorded by him we would like to say a few words to explain our points of view.
Lastly, he says that there were nearly 42,000 appeals and approximately 2000 stay petitions pending in the CEGAT involving revenue worth crores of rupees, which will remain blocked for long.
The focus which was initially on the working of the CEGAT and in particular against the companyduct and behaviour one of its Members number shifted to the legality and validity of the appointment of respondent No.
3 and his companypetence to hold the post was questioned.
In letter dated December 26, 1991, addressed to the Chief Justice of India, the petitioner highlighted the mal functioning of the CEGAT and the imperative to appoint a sitting or retired judge of the High Court as President to revitalise its functioning and to regenerate warning and withering faith of the litigant public of the efficacy of its adjudication.
Ramaswamy, Attorney General, D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, B. Parthasarthy, C.V.S. Rao, A.S. Bhasme and Chava Badri Nath Babu for the Respondent.
Serious allegations were made against respondent No.
It all began with the receipt of a letter dated December 26, 1991, from Shri R.K. Jain, Editor, Excise Law Times, addressed to then Chief Justice of India, Shri M.H. Kania, J., companyplaining that as the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short the CEGAT was without a President for the last over six months the functioning of the Tribunal was adversely affected, in that, the Benches sit for hardly two hours or so, the sittings companymence late at about 10.50 a.m., there is a tendency to adjourn cases on one pretext or the other so much so that even passing of interim orders, like stay orders, etc.,
3 as its President.
is postponed and inordinately delayed, and the general tendency is to work for only four days in a week.
objected to our inspecting the file and desired to claim privilege.
i i.e. in regard to the appointment of the President of the CEGAT.
The President accordingly appointed him.
Three directions were sought, namely, the immediate appointment of the President to the CEGAT, preferably a senior High Court Judge , order an enquiry into the mal functioning of the CEGAT and issue all other directions as your Lordship may deem fit and necessary.
This letter was directed to be treated as Public Interest Litigation and numberice was issued to the Union of India restricted to relief No.
Rule nisi was also issued to the respondents in that writ petition on May 4, 1992.
K. Jain, and Rajan Mukherjee for the customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
After he retired in 1985 numberJudge was appointed as President.
In the meanwhile die petitioner filed writ petition No.
On April 29, 1992, the learned Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the appointment of the President was made.
3 was poor and he was hardly fit to hold the post of the President of the CEGAT.
To put a quietus to the entire matter at an early date we called the file from the Registry on May 4,1992 but when we were about to peruse the same the learned Additional Solicitor General companytended that the Court cannot inspect it because he desired to claim privilege.
The union was directed to file written application setting out the grounds on which the claim for privilege is founded and directed the Registry to return the sealed envelop as the Solicitor General expressed handicap to make precise claim of the privilege for want of file.
D. Thakur, Tapash Ray, M.L. Verma, Gauray Jain, and Ms. Abha Jain for the Petitioner in W.P. No.
the order was number placed on record.
