TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to his costs which we quantify at ₹ 10,000/-. All the books seized shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith. - 598 of 1979 - - - Dated:- 12-7-1994 - S.C. Agarwal and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. [Judgment per : B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.]. - The validity of confiscation of books imported by the petitioner from Peoples Republic of China is questioned in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a distributor and publisher of Marxist literature. In the year 1978, he imported books comprising mainly the writings of Mao Zedong (in both English and Indian languages). The books were imported by sea through Bombay and Calcutta Ports. They were seized at the said ports. Show cause notices were issued by the Assistant Collectors of Customs of both the places calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days why the seized books be not confiscated for violating Notifications No. 25 dated 9th March, 1960, No. 77 dated 22nd September, 1956, No. 158 dated 26th November, 1969 and No. 186 dated 1st December, 1962 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As many as sixteen show cause notices were issued by both the authorities put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lectors of Customs to supply the copies of notifications to the petitioner. They were also not bound to inform him of the date of hearing in the absence of an explanation from him. The confiscation is fully warranted by Notification No. 77 and is unobjectionable. 4. Notification No. 77, dated 22nd September, 1956, as published in the Gazette of India, Part II - Section 3, dated 22nd September, 1956 reads as follows : "S.R.O. 2116. — In exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1878), as in force in India and as applied to the State of Pondicherry, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division) No. 49-Customs, dated the 2nd August, 1952, the Central Government hereby prohibits the bringing by sea or by land into India or the State of Pondicherry of any newspaper, news-sheet, book or other document containing words, signs or visible representations which are likely to — (i) incite or encourage any person to resort to violence or sabotage for the purpose of overthrowing or undermining the Government established by law in India or in any State thereof or its authority in are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962." (Para-2 of this order says that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause memo dated 21st March, 1979. It is, however, admitted in the counter-affidavit that in response to earlier show cause notices the petitioner did indeed ask for more time and for supply of copies of the notifications. It appears probable that the petitioner did not respond to subsequent show cause notices.) 6. It would be seen immediately that the confiscation orders are totally bald and devoid of any findings in terms of Notification No. 77. The order does not say which of the books fall within the mischief of which clause of the Notification. It is not as if the Notification proscribes these books by name, i.e., by title. It only says that import of books containing matter of the nature mentioned therein is prohibited. The books imported are writings, speeches and works of Mao, besides the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. If they were proposed to be confiscated, it was obligatory upon the authority to say which book contained words of the nature mentioned in the Notification. In this context, it is relevant to note that even the show cause notices did not specify which particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or that they attract any of the other clauses in Notification No. 77. Absence of such specification both in the show cause notices and the final orders must be held to vitiate the action taken. 8. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978 (2) S.C.R. 621], it was observed (by Bhagwati, J.) : "It is true, and we must straightway concede it, that merely because a statutory provision empowering an authority to take action in specified circumstances is constitutionally valid as not being in conflict with any fundamental rights, it does not give a carte blanche to the authority to make any order it likes so long as it is within the parameters laid down by the statutory provision. Every order made under a statutory provision must not only be within the authority conferred by the statutory provision, but must also stand the test of fundamental rights. Parliament cannot be presumed to have intended to confer power on an authority to act in contravention of fundamental rights. It is a basic constitutional assumption underlying every statutory grant of power that the authority on which the power is conferred should act constitutionally and not in violation of any fundamental rights. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
