M/S Data Enterprises v. Union of India and Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. DECEMBER 03, 2015 ‗pp/gsr/bs'

(corrected and uploaded on 13th January, 2016)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3rd December, 2015 + W.P.(C) No.3464/2012 M/S DATA ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Mr. Karan Chawla and Mrs. Anjali J. Manish, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. S.S. Rai and Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advs. for R-1&2 AND + W.P.(C) No.3465/2012 BEDY ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Mr. Karan Chawla and Mrs. Anjali J. Manish, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. S.S. Rai and Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advs. for R-1&2. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. These two petitions though by different petitioners were filed together by the same Advocate and have always been listed together for hearing and are taken up together for disposal. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3464/2012 has imported old and used LCD monitors to India. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3465/2012 has imported old and used LCD monitors and Desktop Computer without hard disk drives and 70 pieces of old cooler fans. Both the petitioners, after the consignments had reached India, realising that for import thereof permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India is required, applied therefor and which permission has been denied to them vide letter dated 10th April, 2012 to each of the petitioners. Impugning the said letters dated 10th April, 2012, the present petitions have been filed. 3. The petitions were entertained and counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Ministry of Environment and Forests. The respondent in accordance with the order dated 24th February, 2015 has also filed an additional affidavit. 4. The counsels have been heard. 5. The petitioners, in the petitions have pleaded that at the time of importing the aforesaid goods they were not aware of the permission for such import being required under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 6,8 & 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and hence applied therefor after the goods had arrived in India. It is the contention of the petitioners that the denial of permission to them is bad. 6. The respondents, in the letters aforesaid dated 10th April, 2012 have stated (i) that the Expert Committee constituted by the respondents had recommended in general that import of computers for charity should not be allowed; (ii) that the Customs Authorities and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee had been requested to inspect the consignments and submit their Report; (iii) that in the meanwhile during examination of another application seeking permission to import used desktop computers for charity, in view of the availability of low cost computers developed in the country including those promoted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, a decision was taken that import of second hand computers for reuse should not in general be allowed; and (iv) therefor the import of used computers/computer peripherals which may lead to early generation of e- waste was not considered desirable. 7. Though the counsel for the petitioners was generally challenging the said decision but it was enquired from him whether not judicial review to challenge the executive decision is circumscribed by the well recorded parameters of either the decision being by an Authority not authorised to take the decision or being contrary to the Rules, Laws and Regulations applicable to the taking of the said decision or being so illogical and/or unreasonable which on the face of it appears to be so and could not have been reached by any reasonable person. 8. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent has denied permission to the petitioners on the basis of a general decision having been taken while considering the application of some other p