Abs Xpress Private LTD. vs. The Plant Protection Advisor
Held
The Court, considering the submissions of both parties, decided not to go into the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the first respondent, the Plant Protection Advisor, to consider the petitioner's representations dated 3.5.2016 and 5.5.2016. This consideration was to be done on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioner and any other interested parties. The Court mandated that an order should be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction.
Facts
The petitioner, ABS Xpress Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 (Plant Protection Advisor, Joint Director, and Regional Director of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage) to post adequate Plant Quarantine Officials at the Tiruchirappalli International Airport. Specifically, the petitioner requested officials during the hours of 17:30 to 22:00 daily, and on Sundays and holidays. The petitioner had previously submitted representations dated May 3, 2016, and May 2, 2016, to the authorities regarding this issue. The respondents, represented by the Central Government Standing Counsel, accepted notice and agreed to consider the representations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to post adequate Plant Quarantine Officials at the Tiruchirappalli International Airport during specified hours (17:30 to 22:00 daily, and on Sundays/Holidays)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it would be sufficient if a direction was issued to the first respondent to consider their representations dated 3.5.2016 and 2.5.2016. The petitioner sought a directive for adequate staffing to ensure proper quarantine services. Revenue/State's contention: The Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the representations of the petitioner would be considered as per law. No specific arguments were made against the petitioner's prayer, but rather an assurance of consideration was given.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 27.09.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P(MD)No.18300 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.14755 of 2017 ABS Xpress Private Limited, represented by its Director, S.A.Sayeed. ... Petitioner
Vs
The Plant Protection Advisor, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture, NH-4, Faridabad, Hariyana -121 001. 2. The Joint Director(PQ), Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture, NH-4, Faridabad, Hariyana -121 001. 3. The Regional Director(PQ), Regional Plant Quarantine Station, GST Road, Near Trident Hotel, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027. 4. The Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine Station, Tiruchirappalli International Airport, Tiruchirappalli – 620 007. 5. The Director, Airport Authority of India, Tiruchirappalli Airport, Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to post adequate Plant Quarantine https://hcservices.ecourt
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.