T.M.S.Enterprises. vs. The District Collector

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.T.M.S.Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to prevent respondents (District Collector, ADGP CSCID, Superintendent of Police) from interfering with their business operations and transportation of oil products via vehicle TN – 28 – M 2877 without due process and by causing harassment. The petitioner alleged that their vehicle was detained for four to six hours during checks, leading to commodity damage and frequent harassment. The respondents, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, stated that an inspection was undertaken due to GST violations. The Court noted that while routine vehicle checks are permissible, the petitioner must provide specific instances of willful misconduct by officials to warrant an order without basis.

Held

The Court held that while routine vehicle checks by respondent officials are a legitimate duty and cannot be denied, the petitioner's grievance lacked specificity. The Court observed that for an omnibus order to be passed without any basis, the petitioner must provide details of specific incidents of willful misconduct by the respondents. Without such specific complaints detailing willful acts, the Court cannot pass an order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate authority if any trouble arises in the future based on specific incidents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are lawfully entitled to interfere with the petitioner's business operations and transportation of oil products without following due process of law and by causing harassment? (Constitutional Law / Administrative Law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' actions of detaining their vehicle for extended periods during checks, under the guise of verifying documents, constituted harassment and interfered with their business operations, leading to commodity damage. They sought a writ of Mandamus to restrain such actions. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that inspections were undertaken due to GST violations. They did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claim of harassment but indicated the checks were necessitated by potential violations.