Sharad Goyal vs Union of India

Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. The only relief sought in this writ petition is that respondent No. 2 be directed not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to investigation going on against M/s. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills and not to harass the petitioner by detention in compliance of this Court''s order dated 23-1-2015.

The order dated 23-1-2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 61 of 2015 is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. We find that there is nothing which may give an impression or which may be construed as if the respondents have been restrained from arresting the petitioner. The order dated 23-1-2015 reads as under:

"Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the respondents.

Pursuant to a search conducted at the business premises of the petitioner. The Excise authorities has issued a notice under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act directing the petitioner to appear in person along with the records. In spite of summons being issued on two occasions, the petitioner has failed to appear and approached this writ Court contending that he has furnished the documents and consequently the authority should not insist or direct the petitioner to appear. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that he has an apprehension that he would be detained the moment he appears before the authority concerned.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the summons issued under Section 14 is for the purpose that the petitioner also give evidence which is within the scope of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. There is no illegality in the issuance of the summons. The apprehension that the petitioner would he detained is not well founded but is based on surmises and conjuncture. We, accordingly dismiss the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to appear before the authorities concerned along with his Counsel."

(emphasis added)

The petitioner has been summoned by respondent No. 2 in some investigation and this power is governed by Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1944"), which reads as under :

"Section 14. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in inquiries under this Act. - (1) Any Central Excise Officer duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making for any of the purposes of this Act. A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned.

(2) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend, either in person or by an authorised agent, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and to produce such documents and other things as may be required :

Provided that the exemptions under Sections 132 and 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall be applicable to requisitions for attendance under this section.

(3) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)."

The power of arrest has been conferred upon the Excise authorities on existence of certain conditions. It is well protected inasmuch the Excise authorities would have to satisfy certain conditions as provided in Section 13 of the Act, 1944. There is no factual foundation in the writ petition to demonstrate that the apprehension of the petitioner is founded of any material on record. Moreover, if the power is exercised validly under the statute, the law does not permit this Court to interfere in exercise of such statutory power by issuing mandamus.

It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are enforcing a legal right and the respondents are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something but have failed to do so.

In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and Another, AIR 2008 SC 1339 : (2008) 1 BC 582 : (2008) 151 PLR 136 : (2008) 1 SCALE 298 : (2008) 2 SCC 280 : (2008) AIRSCW 756 : (2008) 1 Supreme 172 the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2149 : (1977) 4 SCC 145 : (1978) 1 SCR 375 : (1977) 9 UJ 586 ; Lekhraj Satramdas, Lalvani Vs. Deputy Custodian-cum-managing Officer and Others, AIR 1966 SC 334 : (1966) 1 SCR 120 , Harbans Nonia and another Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1992 SC 125 : (1992) CriLJ 105 : (1991) 2 SCALE 779 : (1993) 1 SCC 485 Supp observed as under :

"There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation."

In view of above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.