TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are enforcing a legal right and the respondents are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something but have failed to do so. - petitioner is not entitled for any relief. - Decided against Petitioner. - Writ Tax No. - 184 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2015 - Sudhir Agarwal and Shashi Kant, JJ. For the Petitioner : Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh For the Respondent : S.S.C. Amit Mahajan ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 2. The only relief sought in this writ petition is that respondent no. 2 be directed not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to investigation going on against M/s Bharat Steel Rolling Mills and not to harass the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner would be detained is not well founded but is based on surmises and conjuncture. We, accordingly dismiss the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to appear before the authorities concerned along with his counsel. (emphasis added) 4. The petitioner has been summoned by respondent no. 2 in some investigation and this power is governed by Section 14 of Central Excise Tax Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1944 ), which reads as under: Section 14. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in inquiries under this Act. - (1) Any Central Excise Officer duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf, shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he power is exercised validly under the statute, the law does not permits this Court to interfere in exercise of such statutory power by issuing mandamus. 6. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are enforcing a legal right and the respondents are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something but have failed to do so. 7. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another (2008) 2 SCC 280 the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334, Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar 1993(1) SCC 485 observed as under: Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
