M/S Swastik Carry Bags vs. The UOI And Others

Held

The Court acknowledged that the impugned order was based on Circular dated 31.12.2018, which had been quashed by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner contended that this quashing should have nationwide effect. While the respondents did not dispute this legal position, they informed the Court that the Union of India had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment, and this SLP was pending. In light of the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court and to maintain judicial discipline, the High Court refrained from expressing its opinion on the validity of the circular. The Court directed that the present petition would be governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP. Consequently, the execution and operation of the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 and any consequential orders were kept in abeyance until the final adjudication of the SLP by the Supreme Court. The parties were directed to abide by the Supreme Court's decision.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Swastik Carry Bags, approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh seeking to quash an impugned circular dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) and subsequent orders dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) and another order (Annexure P-3). The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 was based on the circular dated 31.12.2018, which had been quashed by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that a quashed circular issued by the Union of India should be treated as quashed nationwide. The respondents, Union of India and the State, did not dispute the legal position but noted that the Delhi High Court's judgment quashing the circular had been assailed by the Union of India before the Supreme Court and was pending adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned circular dated 31.12.2018, having been quashed by the Delhi High Court, is to be treated as quashed throughout India, thereby rendering subsequent orders based on it illegal and without jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioner under the principle laid in Kusim Ingots & Allots Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254? 2. Whether the impugned orders dated 29.12.2022 and Annexure P-3 are liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction, time-barred, arbitrary, and illegal, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the circular dated 31.12.2018, forming the basis of the impugned order, was quashed by the Delhi High Court, and therefore, the impugned orders were illegal. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Kusim Ingots & Allots Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. The respondents did not dispute the legal position regarding the quashing of the circular but stated that the Union of India had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's decision, which was pending.