- (1.) The petitioners have filed these Transfer Petitions praying that Writ Petitions Nos. 4037 & 4038/82 pending in the High Court of Delhi may be withdrawn from the High Court and either be tried and disposed of by this Court or be transferred to another High Court in the ends of justice. It is not necessary for the purpose of these Transfer Petitions to set out the facts giving rise to the Writ Petitions but it will be sufficient to state that by the Writ Petitions the petitioners sought to challenge certain orders made by the Collector of Customs directing confiscation of the consignments of industrial coconut oil imported by the petitioners and imposing a fine of Rs. 5 crores in respect of the various bills of entry covering these consignments. The Writ Petitions have had a chequered career in the High Court of Delhi and in order to appreciate the orders made by us from time to time, it is necessary to refer briefly to the history of the Writ Petitions in the High Court of Delhi.
(2.) The Writ Petitions first came up for admission before Mr. Justice N.N. Goswami who was the Vacation Judge at the material time. The learned Judge directed that the Writ Petitions may be listed before a Division Bench 011 the reopening of the High Court after the vacation. The grievance of the petitioners was that the Writ Petitions were of an urgent nature because heavy demurrage at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-per day was being incurred in respect of the consignments and yet the Writ Petitions were not taken up for admission by the learned Judge but were directed to be placed before a Division Bench after the vacation. The writ petitions thereafter came up for admission before a Division Bench comprising of Mr. Justice D. K. Kapur and Mr. Justice Ranganathan on 6th January, 1983 when the Division Bench issued notices to the respondents to show cause why the writ petitions should not be admitted. Similar notices were also issued to the respondents on the applications for stay in the writ petitions. These notices were made returnable on 18th January, 1983 and they were served on the respondents on different dates between 7th and 10th January, 1983. The respondents did not file any counter affidavit in reply to the writ petitions but opposed the issuance of rule nisi and grant of stay. The Division Bench however, after hearing the respondents issued rule nisi but refused to stay the operation of the impugned orders. The Division Bench directed expeditious disposal of the writ petitions and fixed a time schedule for filing the counter affidavit and the affidavit in rejoinder. Since the stay was refused, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 5 crores representing the penalty imposed upon them. It appears that the respondents thereafter made an application challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petitions and also contending that the writ petitions were not maintainable since alternative remedy was available to the petitioners. Mr. Justice Wad before whom the writ petitions came up for hearing, however, directed that the respondents must file a counter affidavit in reply to the entire petition and the question whether the hearing should be restricted only to the preliminary objections or the entire writ petitions should be heard on merits, would be decided on 21st February 1983.
(3.) The writ petitions thereafter came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Awad Bihari who heard the writ petitions for four days in the first week of March, 1983. On 8th March, 1983, however, Mr. D.P. Wadhwa, as he then was, representing the respondents, met with an accident necessitating an adjournment of the writ petitions. Mr. Justice Awad Bihari thereupon adjourned the writ petitions and in spite of having heard the writ petitions for four days, directed that for personal reasons he would not like to hear the writ petitions and that the writ petitions may be listed before some other learned Judge. The writ petitions then came up for hearing before Mr. Justice H.L. Anand who heard the writ petitions for 14 days but ultimately at the end of 14 days hearing, he delivered a judgment making various observations relating to totally extraneous matters which were not on -record. The learned Judge made reference to "the controversial background of the petitioners" $$and observed that having regard to various matters referred to by him in the judgment, it might not be possible to keep his mind free from some of those matters which on one reckoning may appear to be extraneous to the real questions in controversy before him. The learned Judge also felt that the writ petitions gave rise to important and difficult questions and having regard to all the circumstances he thought it would be desirable that the writ petitions are heard by a larger Bench preferably a full Bench and he suggested that "in view of the controversy that the petitioners i have generated elsewhere as indeed in the corridors of this Court", the writ petitions may be placed before the full Court for the constitution of the Bench so as to save unnecessary embarassment to the Hon'ble Chief Justice. This order was made by the learned Judge 29th July, 1984.;