Page 198 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

244 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered
discretion. But a public authority may do none of these things unless it acts
reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and relevant grounds of pub-
lic interest. The whole conception of unfettered discretion is inappropriate
to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may
use them for the public good.
There is nothing paradoxical in the imposition of such legal limits. It would
indeed be paradoxical if they were not imposed.”
30. In Indian Nut Products and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 4
SCC 269, while dealing with the similar provision, N.P. Singh J. has opined as
under :-
“10. It is well-settled that if a statute requires an authority to exercise
power, when such authority is satisfied that conditions exist for exercise of
that power, the satisfaction has to be based on the existence of grounds
mentioned in the statute. The grounds must be made out on the basis of the
relevant material. If the existence of the conditions required for the exercise
of the power is challenged, the courts are entitled to examine whether those
conditions existed when the order was made. A person aggrieved by such
action can question the satisfaction by showing that it was wholly based on
irrelevant grounds and hence amounted to no satisfaction at all. In other
words, the existence of the circumstances in question is open to judicial re-
view.”
31. The reason to believe as held in Sheo Nath Singh v. CIT, (1972) 3 SCC
234, cannot be basis on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour though belief on an
honest basis and on reasonable grounds and the officer may act on direct or cir-
cumstantial evidence. However, if the officer were to act without any material or
irrelevant, extraneous material, it would constitute an act without jurisdiction.
32. Sabayasachi Mukharji J., in Indru Ramchand Bharvani & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 1 = 1992 (59) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.), has clarified that “the
expression ‘reasonable belief’ has to be adjudged from the perspective of a per-
son having an experienced eye”, well equipped to interpret the suspicious cir-
cumstances and to form ‘reasonable belief’.
33. Kuldip Singh J., in M/s. J.K. Bardolia Mills v. M.L. Khunger, Dy. Col-
lector and others, (1994) 5 SCC 332 = 1994 (72) E.L.T. 813 (S.C.) has held failure on
the part of the authorities to issue show cause notice obliges the authorities to
return the goods without continuance of adjudicatory proceedings in respect
thereof.
34. We are proceeding to quash the seizure notice and not relegating
the petitioners to an adjudicatory proceedings, and we are also fortified to form
such an opinion, in view of the earlier decision rendered by this Court for Co-
ordinate Bench in Bawa Gopal Das Bedi & Sons and others v. Union of India and oth-
ers, AIR 1982 Patna 152 = 1982 (10) E.L.T. 351 (Pat.) wherein under similar cir-
cumstances, in a writ jurisdiction, the Court quashed similar proceedings rather
than making the party undergo the adjudicatory process for the proceedings ini-
tiated without any basis.
35. Referring again to the instant case, we notice that the goods as per
invoice (pages 24-26) originated from the State of Assam on 4th of February,
2019. They were to be transported to the State of Karnataka. Both the places are
in India not in any specified/notified area under the Act but are the National
Highways in the State of Bihar. On 6th of February, 2019, Inspector/S.O.,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  214