High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-01-07Writ petition disposed

Harikrishnan R. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs, Trivandrum Zone & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).NO.35181 OF 2019(W)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2020-01-07
Court Decision / Holding: The competent authority among the respondents will proceed with the matter in pursuance to the impugned notices strictly in accordance with law, and the petitioner is granted liberty to pursue any legally justiciable grievances after finalisation of the proceedings. The writ petition is disposed with directions suitable to ensure due process and lawful action.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

HARIKRISHNAN.R., Assistant General Manager/Airport Manager, Airports Authority of India, Trivandrum International Airport, Trivandrum 695 008.

Respondents

The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Trivandrum Zone, Revenue Buildings, I.S Press Road, Ernakulam, Kochi 682 018.
Superintendent Customs (Preventive), Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 5th Floor, Catholic Centre, Broadway, Cochin 682031.
Mr. Saju N.V., Superintendent Customs (Preventive), Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 5th Floor, Catholic Centre, Broadway, Cochin 682031.
Mr. Prabodh S., Inspector, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Airport Customs, Trivandrum International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram 695 024.
Mr. SURENDRAN, Head Havildar, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Airport Customs, Trivandrum International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram 695 024.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V. Santharam
• Sri Lakshmeesh S. Kamath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Jaishankar V. Nair, CGC for R1 to R5

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges notices issued under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and seeks to quash those notices and permit access to CCTV footage. The petitioner, Harikrishnan R., is the Assistant General Manager and Airport Manager at Trivandrum International Airport. On 11.11.2019, Customs officers allegedly barged into his office, demanded CCTV replay, and threatened him with dire consequences as officers wield substantial powers. He was served with notices under Section 108, which he contends are beyond the scope of the enquiry, issued without substantiating the subject matter, and tainted by malafides and misuse of power. The petitioner claims he is not the custodian of CCTV footages and that the 2nd respondent had no authority to investigate the incident. He filed representations challenging the legality of Exhibits P4, P6, and P8. The respondents state that the petitioner appeared before the competent officer on 30.12.2019, answered questions, and that a signed statement was recorded; the competent authority will examine the matter strictly in accordance with law. The High Court disposed the matter with directions: the competent authority will proceed under law, and the petitioner may pursue remedies after finalization of the proceedings, with liberty to seek legal redress if warranted.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaSection 108 of the Customs Act, 1962

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Exts. P4, P6 and P8, which are summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, are unsustainable, issued by the misuse of power and tainted by malafides. He asserts that the 2nd respondent had no authority to investigate the incident that occurred in his office on 11.11.2019 and that he is not the custodian of CCTV footage. He submitted that the subject matter of the enquiry is not disclosed in the notices and that he should not be summoned without proper notice detailing the enquiry’s scope. He seeks a mandamus to quash these notices, to obtain CCTV footages through proper channels, to ensure a proper notice explaining the subject matter, and to permit legal assistance during proceedings. He also requests relief to seek remedies in accordance with law after the finalisation of proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents state that the petitioner appeared before the competent authority on 30.12.2019 and answered the questions; a signed statement was recorded. They submit that the matter will be examined strictly in accordance with law, and that the notices under Section 108 were issued within the proper legal framework. They indicate the proceedings will continue lawfully and that the petitioner has avenues for redress if any grievance arises after final proceedings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Harikrishnan R. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs, Trivandrum Zone & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).NO.35181 OF 2019(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **HARIKRISHNAN.R.,** **ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/AIRPORT MANAGER, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM 695 008.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.SANTHARAM,SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TRIVANDRUM ZONE, REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 018.** - **2 SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY,COCHIN 682031.** - **3 MR. SAJU N.V, SUPEERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY,COCHIN 682031.** - **4 MR. PRABODH S.,INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AIRPORT CUSTOMS, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.** - **5 MR. SURENDRAN,HEAD HAVILDAR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AIRPORT CUSTOMS, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.** **SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC FOR R1 TO R5.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 35181 of 2019 ------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of January, 2020 ## J U D G M E N T The case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows: The petitioner is the Assistant General Manager presently working as Airport Manager, Trivandrum. On 11.11.2019 at 4 am, respondents 4 & 5 barged into the office of the petitioner and demanded CCTV replay. The petitioner expressed his inability to do so on valid grounds. Thereafter, respondents 4 & 5 threatened the petitioner with dire consequences as they are Customs Officers having enormous powers. Later, the petitioner was served with Exts.P4, P6 & P8 notices allegedly under Sec.108 of the Customs Act, against which the petitioner had filed Exts.P5, P7 & P9 representations mainly alleging that the notices issued under Sec.108 of the Customs Act does not contain the subject matter regarding which the investigation is conducted by the 2[nd] respondent and the demand of production of CCTV footages W.P.(C) No. 35181 of 2019 ..3.. of 11.11.2019 was not possible by the petitioner as he is not the custodian of the same. Actually the 2[nd] respondent has no authority to investigate regarding the incident happened on 11.11.2019 in the office chamber of the petitioner. It is clearly evident from page 1 of Ext.P8 (covering letter). Infact by Ext.P13 the Customs Officials had already sought for the required CCTV footages of 11.11.2019 and inspite of that the petitioner is threatened with dire consequences if he does not appear before the 2[nd] respondent on the dates mentioned in the notices. The petitioner submits that Exts.P4, P6 & P8 notices allegedly issued under Sec.108 of the Customs Act is unsustainable in law and issued by misuse and abuse of power and tainted with malafides. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: “ - _i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Exhibits-P4, P6 and P8 and verify its legality, propriety, correctness, reasonableness and quash the same._ - _ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to make appropriate application before the Airport Director, Trivandrum or the Chief Security Officer, CISF, Trivandrum International Airport, Trivandrum, for obtaining the CCTV_ W.P.(C) No. 35181 of 2019 ..4.. _footage as claimed under Exhibit-P4 notice._ - _iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3, if they are again willing to summon the petitioner, to issue a proper notice briefly explaining the details of the subject matter regarding which the enquiry is conducted._ - _iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to permit the legal assistance/appearance through authorized representative in the proceedings if any further notice under Section 108 is issued._ - _v. Issue such other writ, order or direction as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court according to the facts and circumstances of the case for the interest of justice. ”_ 2. Heard Sri.V.Santharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jayasankar V.Nair, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Though the matter had come up for consideration on 20.12.2019, this Court had passed an order on that day recording the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will in response to the subsequent notice issued to him will appear before the respondents on 30.12.2019, etc. Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.V.Santharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit on the basis of instructions that the petitioner has already appeared before the competent authority in pursuance of the abovesaid W.P.(C) No. 35181 of 2019 ..5.. notice dated 30.12.2019 on 30.12.2019 and has answered the questions posed to him by the officer, and his signed statement has been recorded by the officer concerned. 4. Sri.Jayasankar V.Nair, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit on the basis of instructions that the petitioner has appeared before the competent officer concerned on 30.12.2019 in pursuance of notice issued to him and his signed statement has also been recorded by the said officer on that day, and further that, the competent authority among the respondents will examine the matter and deal with the same strictly in accordance with law. 5. Having regard to the submissions made on both sides, and also having regard to the nature of the factual matters raised in this petition, this Court deems fit it not necessary to keep the matter pending any longer, and suffice to order that the competent authority among the respondents will proceed with the matter in pursuance to the impugned notices strictly in accordance with law, so as to not to give room for any complaint. Further, liberty is W.P.(C) No. 35181 of 2019 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** accorded to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law, in case he has any legally justiciable grievances after the finalisation of the proceedings. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG ..7.. W.P.(C) No. 35181 of 2019 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF OFFICIAL LOG BOOK AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DATED 10-11-2019.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11-11-2019 WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR.** **EXHIBIT P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 11-11-2019 FORWARDED TO THE CUSTOMS OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TRIVANDRUM AIRPORT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DIN201911 58MC00007BE64B DATED 14-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIOND ATED 18-11-2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6** - **TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS (2)-DIN 20191158MC00007DO41E DATED 21-11-2019** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-11-2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 02-12-2019 AND SUMMONS (3)-DIN 20191258MC00000CF DATED 02-12-2019.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09-12-2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.** ..8.. ## W.P.(C) No. 35181 of 2019 **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 33/2003 DATED 25-11-2003.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS F.NO. VIII/26/20/2017/CCP DATED 27-04-2018** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 02-05-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE CUSTOMS OFFICIALS IN CONNECTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION, BEFORE THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR REQUESTING TO SUPPLY CERTAIN CCTV FOOTAGE.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-11-2019 SENT BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TO THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM AND THE COMMANDANT, CISF, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM.**