Chakravartti, J. - (1.) The preliminary objection taken in this case on behalf of the respondent ought, in my opinion, to succeed.
(2.) The appellant's application under Article 226 of the Constitution was rejected by Sinha, J., summarily. The order complained of before the learned Judge was an order, imposing on the appellant a penalty of Rs. 40,000 for a violation of the Customs laws in the shape of aiding and abetting transhipment of goods across the borders of India into Pakistan. The present appeal is against the summary rejection of the application under Article 226.
(3.) Mr. Banerjee, who appears for the respondent, the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta, contends that the appeal, as constituted, cannot be proceeded with to any purpose, because no effective order can be made therein. He points out that according to the appellant's own petition in the Court below, he had preferred an appeal from the impugned order to the Central Board of Revenue and having failed there, made an application for revision to the Central Government. Having failed there as well, he resorted to Article 226 of the Constitution and made the application out of which the present appeal arises. Mr. Banerjee's point was that the sole respondent in the present appeal was the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta, whose order was being challenged, but that order had been superseded by and had merged in the appellate order of the Central Board of Revenue and the Board's order had in turn been superseded by and had merged in the order of the Central Government. Neither the Central Board of Revenue nor the Government of India had been impleaded as respondents Mr. Banerjee's point was that if in those circumstances, a direction was given to the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta, to revise his order or to modify it in any way, he could not possibly carry out the direction, inasmuch as there would be subsisting as binding upon him the appellate order of the Central Board of Revenue and the revisional order of the Government of India. The Court, Mr. Banerjee submitted, should not and would not place an officer in that embarrassing position and also would not make an order which was bound to prove infructuous.;