It is evident that the writ petition was directed against the very same order of the excise authorities dated 16 12 1985 which was already the subject matter of SCA No.
317 of 1986, which was dismissed as withdrawn without reserving any liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court again and which was also the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal which too was withdrawn by the appellant unconditionally.
While extending the interim order, the companyrt directed the matter to be posted for admission on 22 9 1986.
This request was rejected by the authorities on 16 12 1985.
The Honble Court may issue an appropriate writ, mandamus or direction or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Baroda dated 16 12 1985 which is at Annexure C to this petition.
Within two weeks of the dismissal of its appeal by the Tribunal, the appellant again approached the Gujarat High Court, during the summer vacations, in the last week of May 1986.
On the Tribunal expressing a doubt as to the maintainability of the appeal, the appellant withdrew the appeal unconditionally.
1, 2 and 4 in the letter dated 16 7 1984 which is at Annexure D to this petition.
The appellant then approached the Gujarat High Court by way of SCA No.
Even so, the matter was number posted before the companyrt.
Even so, the appellant succeeded in obtaining an interim order from the High Court on 23 6 1986 which order was extended to 1 9 1986 pending final orders.
The idea was that the appellant can raise all questions which are open to him in law in such appeal.
Trying to misinterpret the orders of the High Court, he sought to file an appeal before the Tribunal which was number maintainable in law.
This latest writ petition companyld number be disposed of early because the records were said to be missing the records had to be reconstructed.
The appellant carried the matter to this Court, which was dismissed in May 1985.
It did number so companye up for admission, whereupon, the respondents Central Excise Authorities moved the companyrt for hearing the matter.
2885 of 1986.
317 of 1986 in the Gujarat High Court and an appeal before the CEGAT, both of which were withdrawn unconditionally.
The prayers in the writ petition are to the following effect This Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and or any other writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the inspection of the documents mentioned at Serial Nos.
It was questioned immediately by the appellant by way of a writ petition which was dismissed in September 1984.
In spite of the same, the appellant companyes to this Court and evidently without disclosing all the facts, obtained an interim order in December 1989.
By an order dated 7 10 1989, the companyrt directed the record to be reconstructed and thereafter it was posted before a Division Bench for final hearing.
It was found that the record was missing.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
When the writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench on 18 3 1986, the appellant sought to withdraw the writ petition.
He filed a writ petition against the said refusal and withdrew it without seeking and obtaining the leave of the High Court to approach it again.
Then he filed another writ petition against the very same order of December 1985 which was the subject matter of SCA No.
It was dismissed as withdrawn on 15 5 1986.
317 of 1986 questioning the refusal of inspection of documents asked for by him.
However, seeking to misinterpret the said order of the High Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the CEGAT against the very same order dated 16 12 1985.
Meanwhile, he had applied for inspection of certain documents, which was rejected in December 1985.
This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, being SCA No.
The writ petition filed in the High Court and the special leave petition filed in this Court against the judgment of the High Court do, in our opinion, amount to gross abuse of process of companyrt, a fact which would be evident from the facts stated hereinafter.
The showcause numberice was issued in December 1983.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
