Anil Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Altamas Kabir
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2008-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anil Mishra

Respondents

Union of India
ORS

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. N. Puri
• Dhiraj
• Hari Shankar

Counsels for Respondents

• Ashok Bhan
• Aruna Gupta
• Vandana Mishra
• B. Krishna Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

Anil Mishra, a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, challenged an adverse entry for the year 2000-01 that was communicated to him and followed by a detailed speaking order by the Chief Commissioner, with a memorial to the Central Government also addressed and dismissed. He filed an Original Application before the Administrative Tribunal alleging malafide in the adverse entry; the Tribunal rejected the OA, and a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was also dismissed. The matter reached the Supreme Court on special leave. The Court affirmed that three senior authorities — the Chief Commissioner and the Central Government — had individually considered the representations and rejected them, and it cannot sit as an appellate authority over such orders. It observed that the entry was communicated and the appellant had been afforded an opportunity to respond, with a detailed order and subsequent memorial to the Central Government disposed of. The appellant’s new contention about the entries before and after the year 2000 not being adverse was rejected since it was not raised before the Tribunal or High Court. The Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review over administrative actions and emphasized that bias had not been established. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, with no costs, and Tata Cellular v. Union of India was cited to underscore the principle of limited review.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 136, Constitution of India, 1950

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judicial review of administrative action is limited; Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over administrative orders
No bias attributed to Chief Commissioner or Central Government; decisions of senior authorities are to be respected as final in this context

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the adverse entry for 2000-01 was malafide and part of extraneous considerations. He asserts that the representations to the Chief Commissioner and to the Central Government were not capable of curing the mala fide impression and that additional entries before or after 2000, if adverse or benign, should have been sought and examined. He argues that improper bias may have influenced the decision and seeks summoning of relevant records and an examination of the process by which the entry was created. He further submits that the Tribunal and High Court failed to address these factors, and that the Supreme Court should examine the merits where a clear pattern or mala fide motive exists.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents submit that the adverse entry was communicated and the subject representations were duly considered by three senior authorities — Chief Commissioner and the Central Government — with a detailed speaking order and a memorial dismissed. They argue there is no demonstrated bias, and the Court cannot re-examine the merits of administrative decisions under the guise of judicial review. They point out that new pleas raised for the first time before the Supreme Court were not raised before the Tribunal or High Court, and that the scope of review is constitutionally limited to prompt correction of errors in procedure or illegality, not to reweigh factual determinations.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Tata Cellular v. Union of India	AIR 1996 SC 11	Positive	Cited as authority for the proposition that the scope of judicial review over administrative actions is limited and that the Court should not sit as an appellate authority over such decisions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

> ...; - _I_ I # [2008] 11 S.C.R. 542 A ## ANIL MISHRA _v._ # UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . . (Civil appeal No.4724 of 2008) B # JULY 30, 2008 I # .[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] _Administrative Law_ - _Executive action_ - _Judicial review_ - _Scope of_ - _Adverse entry_ - _Communicated to Appellant,[Represen-]_ c _[Dy. ][Comr[lissioner ][of ][Central Excise ]_[& ] _[Customs ]_[-] _tation against_ - _Rejected by Chief Commissioner by detailed_ - _speaking order Further representation to Central Government also rejected_ - _O.A. by Appellant before Tribunal, contending thqt the adverse entry had been made malafide_ - _Dis[On ]_ D _[missed-: Writ petition before High Court also dismissed ]_[-] _appeal, held: Three senior officers considered Appellant's case and rejected the same_ . . . - _Court cannot sit_ as _an appellate authority; OVf)f .these orders_ - _Chief Commissioner and Central Government are very high authorities and they considered the representations of Appellant_ - _Moreover, no bias attrib-_ E _uted to Chief Commissioner or to Central Government._ i _Constitution of India, 1950_ - _Art. 136_ - _New Plea_ - _Plea not taken before Tribunal or High Court_ - _Held: Cannot be tak(jn for the first time before Supreme Court._ F Appellant was a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs. An adverse entry was communicated to him for the year 2000-2001. Against the adverse entry, Appellant filed representation which was rejected by the Chief Commissioner. Against the order of Chief CommisG sioner, Appellant made further representation to the Central Government, which too was rejected. Appellant filed O.A. before the Administrative Tribunal, contending that the adverse entry had been made _malafide._ Tribunal rejected the 0.A. Against the order, Appellant filed writ petiH 542 )a.. "- _'f_ ~ ANIL MISHRA _v._ UNION OF INDIA 543 & ORS. ,._ tion before High Court, which was also dismissed. Hence '\ the present appeal. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court > _,>.._ ., HELD:1.1.This is not a case where the adverse entry was not communicated to the Appellant. It was not only B communicated but the Appellant made representation against the adverse entry, which was considered by the Chief Commissioner, who rejected the representation by a detailed speaking order. Further memorial to the Central Government has also been considered and dismissed. c Thus three senior officers have considered the appellant's case and rejected the same. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over these orders. [Para 7) [545-G,H; 546-A-B] __ ,... ' 1.2. The appellant submitted that the entries before D 2000 and after 2000 were not adverse to the appellant, and hence the isolated entry for 2000 appears to be biased. This plea was not taken by the appellant before the Tribunal or the High Court, and hence cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time before this Court. If the appelE lant wanted to take this plea, he could have done it before the Tribunal or the High Court. Even if the entries before or after 2000 had not been communicated to him, he could have filed an application before the Tribunal or the High Court for summoning of these entries, and the F Tribunal and the High Court could have summoned the same. However, the appellant filed no such application before the Tribunal for summoning these entries. Hence the appellant has himself to blame. Had the appellant taken such a plea before the Tribunal and the High Court, the G respondent authorities would have had an opportunity to file a reply in rebuttal to this plea. Since the appellant did not take this plea before the Tribunal or the High Court; the department had no opportunity to reply to it. Hence one cannot allow this plea to be ta.ken before this Court. H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. 544 A [Paras 8,9, 10] [546-C,E-H] 1,3. The Chief Commissioner and the Central Government are very high authorities and they considered the representations of the appellant. No bias has been attributed to the Chief Commissioner or to the Central B Government. [Para 11] [547-A] _Tata Cellular vs. Union of India,_ AIR 1996 SC 11 - ref~rred to. Case Law Reference c AIR 1996 SC 11 referred to Para 7 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4724 of 2008 D From the final Judgment and Order dated _61312006_ of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. CAT-3526 of 2006 P.N. Puri, Dhiraj and hari Shankar for the Appellant. E Ashok Bhan, Aruna Gupta, Vandana Mishra and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 6.3.2006 in C.W.P. No.3526 of 2006. .:.... ' · 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. G 4. The appellant Anil Mishra was a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Central Government. He filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, challenging the adverse entry made to him for the year H 2000-01 vide letter dated 16.1.2002. ANIL MISHRA _v._ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] 545 _+-_ > _,>._ -( > 5. Against that adverse entry he had earlier filed a repreA sentation which was rejected by the Chief Commissioner by order dated 14.7.2003. Against the order of the Chief Commissioner, the appellant made further representation to the Central Government, which was rejected by the Competent > Authority of the Central Government, which has been conveyed B by the Under Secretary to the Government of India by his letter dated 30.9.2004. 5. Before the Tribunal the appellant submitted that the adverse entry had been made _malafide._ This fact had been considered by the Tribunal in para 9 of its order and the Tribunal[c ] observed that the appellant had not brought to its notice any extraneous factor or reason as to why the concerned authority should have acted in a _malafide_ manner. Moreover, the appellant's representation against that adverse entry was rejected by the Chief Commissioner, and his further representaD tion to the Central Government was also rejected. Hence the Tribunal rejected the OA of the appellant. { ~' .,. 6. Against the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court noted that the plea of bias had been considered by the Tribunal after an examination of the files and was rejected. The High Court also observed that the appellant's representation was rejected by the Chief Commissioner, who was a very senior officer, after s~eing the rE~cord of the appellant, and the memorial filed by the appellant was also rejected vide order dated 30.9.2004. E F 7. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties, and we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the High Court or the Tribunal. This is not a case G where the adverse entry was not communicated to the appellant. It was not only communicated but the appellant made representation against the adverse entry, which was considered by the Chief Commissioner, who rejected the representation by a detailed speaking order of 5 pages. Further memorial H 546 [2008] 11 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS -1· \o'" A to the Central Government has also been considered and dismissed. Thus three senior officers have considered the appellant's case and rejected the same. We cannot sit as an appellate authority over these orders. The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is limited as has been repeatedly B[held by this Court, vide ] _[Tata ][Cellular ][vs. ][Union ][of ][India, ]_[AIR ] 1996 SC 11, 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entries before 2000 and after 2000 were not adverse to the appellant, and hence the isolated entry for 2000 appears to be c biased. This plea was not taken by the appellant before the Tribunal or the High Court, and hence we cannot allow it to be taken for the first time before us. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not aware of the good entries before and after the year 2000, and hence the appellant D could not bring it to the notice of the Tribunal and the High Court. He also submitted that the entries before the year 2000 and after the year 2000 are good entries, and this shows that the isolated entry in the year 2000 was for extraneous considerations. E F G H 9. We are of the opinion that if the appellant wanted to take this plea, he could have done it before the Tribunal or the High Court. Even if the entries before or after 2000 had not been communicated to him, he could have filed an application before the Tribunal or the High Court for summoning of these entries, and the Tribunal and the High Court could have summoned the same. However, the appellant filed no such application before the Tribunal for summoning these entries. Hence the appellant has himself to blame. 10. Had the appellant taken such a plea before the Tribunal and the High Court, the respondent authorities would have had an opportunity to file a reply in rebuttal to this plea. Since the appellant did not take this p!ea before the Tribunal or the High Court, the department had no opportunity to reply to it. Hence we cannot allow this plea to be taken before us. _>--_ T ANIL MISHRA _v._ UNION OF INDIA 547 8 & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] 11. The Chief Commissioner and the Central Government A are very high authorities and they have considered the representations of the appellant. No bias has been attributed to the Chief Commissioner or to the Central Government. 12. For the reasons given above, we find no merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed. No costs. 8.8.B. Appeal dismissed.