Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 8405/2023 & C.M. Appl.32050/2023
JATIN KHURANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Mahajan, Mr. Ishaan Dhingra, Mr. Mridul Tiwari, Advocates
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, Advocate for CBIC
Date of Decision: 24th November, 2023
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
1. Present public interest petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned Circular instruction No. 22/2022-Customs dated 06th September, 2022 and Circular instruction No. 27/2021-Customs dated 03rd December, 2021, to the extent it mandates compulsory disposal and sale to RBI of all gold ornaments/ jewellery within three months from the date of seizure as ultra vires Section 150, 125 and 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the ‘Customs Act’) and violative of Articles 14, 21, 31 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned Instructions are arbitrary and ultra vires the Customs Act as they fail to differentiate between gold jewellery/ornaments/articles which have design and emotional value from other forms of gold. He further states that conversion of gold jewellery into gold bars and their consequent sale closes all doors for restitution and causes irreparable loss to the rightful owners. He also states that the impugned Instructions are arbitrary as they fail to differentiate between ‘seized’ gold jewellery and ‘confiscated’ gold jewellery.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, this Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable as it is a settled principle of law that an aggrieved person must approach the Court. The standing doctrine characteristic is that a potential litigant must be injured by the action it is challenging. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is a stranger, who has not been adversely affected by either of the impugned Circular Instructions as none of his ornaments or articles or jewellery items have been seized.
4. Undoubtedly, the rule of locus standi is relaxed in case of public interest litigation, but that is to be done only to ensure that the poor or socially and economically backward or persons with disability are not denied their rights. In a public interest case, there need be no litigant, if a problem is deemed by the Court as worthy of attention. The concept of public interest litigation, as stated hereinabove, is linked to the enforcement of the social and economical rights in India. The Supreme Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. vs. C.K. Rajan & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 546 has held as under:-
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation as jewellery / ornaments worth as low as Rs.50,000 can be seized at the airport and sold immediately.
6. This Court is of the view that any individual who owns gold jewellery/ ornaments and who travels by air is not economically or socially backward and can approach the Courts directly.
7. Consequently, the present petition which has been filed as Public Interest Litigation is held to be non-maintainable and the same is dismissed alongwith pending application.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA, J NOVEMBER 24, 2023