By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JULY 26, 2016: THE Joint Secretary to the GOI rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner u/s 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 & against this order dated 20.08.2002 a Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner.

One of the grounds urged by the Petitioner in their rejoinder is that the impugned order was, in fact, not signed by the Joint Secretary and, accordingly, the original file was directed to be produced before the Bench.

Upon perusing the file, the High Court observed -

++ It contains a 'Draft Order' signed by Mr. Dinesh Kakkar, the JS in question at the relevant time. However, there is no date below the signature of Mr. Kakkar. The date '20.8.2002' is written by hand on the left hand corner of the first page of the Draft Order. Also numerous corrections made in the Draft Order have not been initialed by him.

++ What is important is that the impugned order, certified copy of which has been issued to the Petitioner and which has been assailed in the present petition, is present in the file but without the signature of Mr. Kakkar. The end of the order only states "sd/-" with the name of Mr. Dinesh Kakkar typed below. Below this to the left is the attestation of Mr. BAV Srinivasan, Under Secretary (RA).The fact of the matter, therefore, is that the original file does not have the original of the impugned order signed by Mr. Kakkar.

The Counsel for the Revenue informed the Bench that it is the practice followed consistently in the Department of Revenue that only the draft orders are signed by the Adjudicating Authority ("AA") and on that basis, certified copies of the final orders are issued to the parties;that, therefore, the draft order is, for all practical purposes, treated as the final order; that the word "draft" is a mere appendage and it is in fact the final order.

The High Court expressed its inability to agree with the submission made and observed - An AA who makes corrections to a draft order is statutorily obliged to ensure that he or she signs the final order and it is only thereafter that any other officer attest a copy of the said order to be the true copy of the original order. In other words, it is only after the final order in original is signed by the AA that a certified copy thereof can be issued to the parties.

Commenting that it is ‘high time' to cease such practice, the High Court advised the Department of Revenue to issue appropriate instructions.

Insofar as the impugned case is concerned, the High Court held that there is, therefore, no valid order passed on the Petitioner's revision application till date.

Holding that the draft order dated 20th August 2002 has no legal status and cannot be held to be a valid order disposing of the Petitioner's revision application, the High Court added at the said revision application has to be treated as still pending adjudication and disposal.

Resultantly, a direction was issued to the incumbent Joint Secretary in the Department of Revenue to adjudicate and finally dispose of the Petitioner's revision application in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks.

The Writ petition was disposed of.

(See 2016-TIOL-1502-HC-DEL-CUS)