Case law

Delhi High Court · 13 Apr 2009

V K Aggarwal vs Union Of India And Another

Legal principle

Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962 validly and constitutionally bars every former President, Vice-President or Member of CESTAT from appearing, acting or pleading before that Tribunal — whether as a legal practitioner or as an authorised representative — including those who demitted office before the provision's insertion on 11.05.2007, the bar being a partial, forum-specific restriction that violates no fundamental right.

Court decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed all four writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 6710, 6711, 6712 and 6792 of 2007), with no order as to costs. It upheld Section 129(6) as constitutional and held that it applies equally to persons who demitted office before 11.05.2007, including all four petitioners. K.L. Rekhi is barred from appearing as an authorised representative; if he wishes to practise as a legal practitioner he must obtain a law degree, after which he may appear before all forums except CESTAT. The prayers to quash the CESTAT miscellaneous orders and for mandamus consequently failed.

Facts

Four former office-holders of CEGAT/CESTAT — K.L. Rekhi (ex-Member and ex-CBEC Chairman), P.C. Jain (ex-Vice-Chairman), V.K. Aggarwal and N.K. Bajpai (ex-Members) — wished to appear, act or plead before CESTAT after demitting office, Rekhi as an authorised representative and the others as law graduates. No goods are in dispute; the matter is a challenge to a bar on practice. CESTAT, relying on Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962 (inserted by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 11.05.2007), refused to let them appear for their clients, including through miscellaneous orders dated 09.07.2007, 16.07.2007 and 26.07.2007. The four petitioners then filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court seeking to strike down Section 129(6) and to quash the Tribunal's orders.

Key provisions