Quashment Dismissal Judgment in a Customs Case
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute over customs enforcement in Peshawar. A Customs Intelligence Officer challenged an order by a Special Judge who had granted pre-arrest bail to a businessman, Hasanat Akhtar, and also ordered the release of 250 metric tons of RBD Palm Olein (a type of edible oil) from a bonded warehouse, where it had apparently been seized by customs authorities.
The officer initially filed a petition asking the High Court to quash the Special Judge's order using its inherent powers. When the respondent's lawyer objected that this was the wrong legal route, the petition was converted into a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, which allows the High Court to strike down orders passed without lawful authority.
However, the respondent again objected, pointing out that under Section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969, anyone unhappy with a Special Judge's order must appeal to the Special Appellate Court, not come to the High Court through a writ petition. The High Court agreed this was the correct procedure and that the petitioner had used the wrong forum.
Additionally, the court noted that since the goods had already been released to the respondent, even if the original order was wrongful, there was nothing meaningful the court could do at this late stage.
The petition was dismissed, reinforcing that customs-related disputes have a specific appellate route that must be followed rather than bypassing it through writ petitions.
یہ مقدمہ پشاور میں کسٹمز کے نفاذ سے متعلق ایک تنازعہ پر مبنی تھا۔ کسٹمز انٹیلیجنس کے ایک افسر نے اسپیشل جج کے اس حکم کو چیلنج کیا جس کے تحت ایک تاجر، حسنات اختر، کو ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری دی گئی تھی، اور ساتھ ہی بانڈڈ ویئر ہاؤس سے 250 میٹرک ٹن آر بی ڈی پام اولین (ایک قسم کا خوردنی تیل) کی رہائی کا حکم بھی دیا گیا تھا، جسے بظاہر کسٹمز حکام نے قبضے میں لے رکھا تھا۔
افسر نے ابتدائی طور پر ہائی کورٹ میں ایک درخواست دائر کی جس میں عدالت سے استدعا کی گئی کہ وہ اپنے موروثی اختیارات استعمال کرتے ہوئے اسپیشل جج کے حکم کو کالعدم قرار دے۔ جب مدعا علیہ کے وکیل نے اعتراض اٹھایا کہ یہ قانونی طور پر غلط طریقہ کار ہے، تو درخواست کو آئین کے آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت ایک رٹ پٹیشن میں تبدیل کر دیا گیا، جس کے تحت ہائی کورٹ ان احکامات کو کالعدم قرار دے سکتی ہے جو بغیر قانونی اختیار کے جاری کیے گئے ہوں۔
تاہم مدعا عل
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2013 Peshawar 270 (DB) Present: Mian Fasih-ul-Mulk and Assadullah Khan Chamkani , JJ. SAEED IQBAL, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE, PESHAWAR --Petitioner versus HASANAT AKHTAR and another--Respondents Quashment Petition No. 72 converted into W.P. No. 1740 of 2006, decided on 31.1.2013. Customs Act, 1969-- ----S. 185-F--Constitution of Pakistan , 1973, Art. 199--Appeal to Special Appellate Court-- Quashment petition--Order passed by Customs Judge to release raw material from bonded ware house--If aggrieved by order of Special Judge was required to have filed an appeal before Special Appellate Court--Validity--Order of special judge had already been acted upon and alleged seized raw material had been released to respondent--No meaningful order can be passed by High Court at that stage even if it comes to conclusion that release of raw material was not warranted--Petition was dismissed. [P. 272] A Mr. Shahid Qayum Khattak , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Isaq Ali, Advocate and Mr. Javed Ali Asghar , Standing Council for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31.1.2013. Judgment Mian Fasih-ul-Mulk , J.--This petition was initially filed as a quashment petition against the orders of Special Judge (Central) Customs Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, Peshawar dated 18.01.2006 whereby the learned Judge while allowing pre-arrest bail to Respondent No. 1 also ordered the ex-bonding of 250 Metric Tone of RBD Palm Orein in respect of Bill of Entry No. 100048/05 dated 27.12.2005. However, on the objection of learned counsel for respondent that the order passed by the Custom Judge to release raw material from the bonded Ware-House is not amenable to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the Cr.Misc . quashment petition was converted into instant writ petition on the assertion of learned counsel for petitioner that this Court can step-in to set at naught an order passed without lawful authority by any Tribunal or Special Court working in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Today, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent again raised an objection on the maintainability of instant writ petition by referring to Section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969 whereunder the petitioner, if aggrieved by the order of Special Judge was required to have filed an appeal before the Special Appellate Court. The objection seems to be reasonable in view of the provisions of Section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969, which runs as under: "185-F Appeal to Special Appellate Court--(1). Any person, including the Federal Government, aggrieved by any order passed or decision made by a Special Judge under this Act or under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), may subject to the provisions of Chapters XXXI and XXXII of the Code, within sixty days from the date of the order or decision, prefer an appeal or revision to the Special Appellate Court, and in hearing and disposing of such Appeal or revision, such Court shall exercise all the powers of a High Court under the said Code. " Moreover, the order of Special Judge has already been acted upon and the alleged seized raw-material have been released to the respondent, therefore, in our view, no meaningful order can be passed by this Court at this stage even if it comes to the conclusion that the release of raw-material was not warranted.
3. For the reasons stated, this writ petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. (R.A.) Petition dismissed