Abs Xpress Private LTD. vs. The Plant Protection Advisor

Facts

ABS Xpress Private Limited, the petitioner, filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus. The petition requested the court to direct respondents 1 to 3 (Plant Protection Advisor, Joint Director [PQ], and Regional Director [PQ]) to post adequate Plant Quarantine officials at the Tiruchirappalli International Airport Plant Quarantine Station. Specifically, the petitioner sought coverage during the hours of 17:30 to 22:00 daily, and on Saturdays, Sundays, and Public Holidays. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India, referred to an office circular dated 29.06.2018, suggesting that any grievances or requests for further accommodation could be addressed through a representation to the fourth respondent (Plant Protection Officer), which would then be considered.

Held

The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's request for posting of Plant Quarantine officials during the specified hours. Instead, it accepted the submission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. The Court noted that the respondents had referred to an office circular dated 29.06.2018, and suggested that if the petitioner had any grievance or required further accommodation, they should make a representation with reference to this circular. The Court further stated that such a representation would be considered by the fourth respondent, and any action taken would necessarily be with the concurrence of the third respondent. Consequently, the Court found no reason to accede to the petitioner's request for a direct Mandamus. The Writ Petition was closed, with the petitioner being left open to act in accordance with the suggested administrative process.

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 Plant Quarantine Station during specific extended hours, including weekends and public holidays, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued for the necessity of adequate staffing during the requested hours to ensure smooth operations and compliance with quarantine procedures. They sought a directive from the Court to compel the respondents to provide this service. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the Assistant Solicitor General of India, did not directly argue against the need for staffing but instead pointed to an existing office circular dated 29.06.2018. They submitted that the petitioner should make a representation based on this circular to the fourth respondent, and such representation would be considered. The respondents implicitly suggested that this administrative route was the appropriate channel for addressing the petitioner's grievance, rather than a direct court order.