Lalit Bhaichand Ravani vs Union of India

Pendse, J.—By this motion, the petitioner requests that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be committed to civil jail and fine be imposed for wilfully disobeying the order dated July 23, 1990 passed by one of us (Pendse, J.). To appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to set out few facts.

On July 23, 1990, Write Petition No. 2101 of 1990 was disposed of and the relevant portion of the order reads as under :

"The Respondents are hereby directed to refund to the Petitioner the sum of Rs. 1,90,541.92 being the excess basic customs duty recovered from the Petitioners in the matter, within 6 weeks from the submission of relevant documents to the Respondents.

The Petitioner will record to the Respondents the date on which he submits the relevant documents to the Respondents.

If the said amount is refunded to the Petitioner within the period of 6 weeks as aforesaid, the Petitioner will not insist on recovery of any interest on the said amount.

If the amount is not refunded to the Petitioner within the period of 6 weeks as aforesaid, then the Respondents will pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the Petitioner from the date of completion of the aforesaid 6 weeks for granting refund as aforesaid upto the date of payment."

On August 7, 1990, the petitioner addressed letter to the Assistant Collector enclosing certified copy of the order passed by this Court. The letter further recites that original two triplicate copies of the bills of entries and customs attested invoices are already submitted along with the refund application on May 7, 1990. Along with the letter, two form-A duly signed by the department were also enclosed. The Assistant Collector was requested to implement the order of the Court and make the refund. The letter received no response whatsoever. The petitioner then addressed another letter dated October 26, 1990 reiterating what was stated in the earlier letter and informing the Assistant Collector that in case the order of the High Court is not carried out, then the proceedings would be adopted under the Contempt of Courts Act. This letter also did not make any effect on the Assistant Collector of Customs.

Ultimately on November 13, 1990, the petitioner took out the present motion seeking that action should be taken against the Assistant Collector and the Collector for not obeying the orders of this Court. The respondent No. 3 joined to the motion is K. B. Khetrapal who was Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Department) at the relevant time.

In answer to the Motion, R. U. Pillai, Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) filed affidavit sworn on November 30, 1990, inter alia, claiming that the petitioner is in default as he has not submitted the relevant documents, viz. (1) original triplicate copy of duty bill, (2) working sheet showing the detailed calculation of refund due, (3) Custom attested invoice, and (4) Certificate from Central Excise Authority that the Importer has not availed of the proforma credit. It was claimed that in absence of these documents, it is not possible to grant any refund to the petitioner. Shri K. B. Khetrapal, Assistant Collector, also filed affidavit reiterating what is claimed by R. U. Pillai.

Motion reached hearing before us on January 18, 1981 and at that time, Shri K. B. Khetrapal was present in Court and Shri Shringarpure, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, informed us that Khetrapal is transferred and in his place Shri R. P. Trehan, Assistant Collector of Customs is posted and is in charge of the proceedings. Shri R. P. Trehan, Assistant Collector was also present in Court. We enquired from the learned counsel as to which documents were not furnished as there was dispute between the parties about furnishing of the documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the documents are indeed furnished and offered to give copies of the documents in the Court itself. Accordingly, we directed the petitioner to hand over the documents to Shri R. P. Trehan who was in charge of the proceedings for refund of the amount. The Officer was satisfied with the documents furnished and assured that payment would be made within two weeks. On the assurance and promise given by Shri R. P. Trehan and his counsel, we adjourned the proceedings for a period of two weeks. The motion could not be taken up after two weeks as the Bench was not assembled. Today, when the motion reached hearing in the morning, Shri Shringarpure stated that refund has not been paid and he was unable to state why the promise was not carried out as R. P. Trehan was not present in Court. We thereupon directed that R. P. Trehan should be kept present in Court to explain why the order of this Court was not carried out and why the assurance given on January 18, 1991 was not fulfilled.

Accordingly, at 2.45 p.m. today, Shri R. P. Trehan is present in Court and Shri Shringarpure informs us that there is no defence as to why the payment was not made. Shri Shringarpure state that he has been instructed to claim that as the order passed on July 23, 1990 provides that in case of default in making refund within six weeks, the Department is liable to pay interest, the Department is not bound to make repayment and the default can be compensated only by payment of interest. We are aghast at the claim made by the respondents. It only establishes the willful disobedience to the order. The direction to pay interest was only with a view that Department will not commit default and the Department cannot flout the orders of the Court by claiming that refund will not be granted and the petitioner at the most be entitled to interest. In our judgment, such a contention is extremely dishonest and indicates disrespect the Officer has to the orders of the Court. We repeatedly enquired from Shri Shringarpure as to what is the reason for not granting refund inspite of receipt of all the documents by the Officer and Shri Shringarpure stated that there is no answer whatsoever. Shri Shringarpure faintly submitted that the Collector has now advised to make payment but is unable to state as to when the payment would be made. In our judgment, R. P. Trehan, Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Department) is clearly guilty of serious contempt of this Court and is, therefore, required to be committed and suitably punished.

Accordingly, Shri R. P. Trehan, Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Department) is found guilty of committing contempt of this Court. We direct that he should be detained in civil prison for a period of one week and we also impose a fine of Rs. 500/-. The Sheriff to act upon the order. Motion is disposed of accordingly.

Thursday, the 28th February, 1991.

Shri J. F. Pochkhanawala with Shri H. R. Shetty, for the petitioner in support.

Shri C. J. Shah with Shri K. C. Sidhwa, for the respondents to show cause.

Today, at 2.45 p.m. affidavit of Shri T. R. Kapoor, Assistant Collector, sworn on February 28, 1991 is filed seeking stay of the order for a period of one week on the ground that SLP is filed against the judgment and it is likely to be posted for admission on March 4, 1991 before the Supreme Court. In view of the affidavit, operation of the Judgment is stayed till March 12, 1991.