PNP 1 WP8952-8.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8952 OF 2011 M/s. CFS Association of India ..Petitioner. versus Union of India and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Vikram Nankani with Mr. Naresh Thacker, Mr. Nitya Bagaria i/b Mr. Madhur R. Baya for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for Respondents 2 to 6 and 10. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 8 November 2011. P.C. : 1. The Petitioners had filed an earlier writ petition under Article 226 inter alia to challenge a prescription imposed in regard to the minimum distance required to be maintained for segregating hazardous and non-hazardous cargo at the Container Freight Stations, or as the case may be, Inland Container Depots. By a judgment dated 5 October 2011 this Court declined to entertain the challenge on the ground that issues such as the maintenance of a safe distance between general and hazardous cargo are matters of scientific expertise where the Court would place a degree of deference on a decision taken by the competent authority. The Court was also apprised of the fact that the Union Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Union Ministry of Shipping were considering the issue and it was PNP 2 WP8952-8.11.sxw only appropriate and proper to leave a final decision to the expert opinion of the authorities concerned. The Court categorically held that nothing arbitrary in the decisions impugned before the Court was shown. Following the decision of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs has issued a circular dated 19 October 2011 referring to the decision of this Court and requiring Container Freight Stations or as the case may be, Inland Container Depots who are interested in providing a storage facility for hazardous cargo to comply with a checklist issued on 3 March 2011. The check list formed the subject matter of the earlier petition and as noted above, this Court expressly declined to interfere in the exercise of power by the competent authority. The Petitioners once again seek to challenge the checklist issued under the communication dated 3 March 2011 besides the subsequent circular issued now on 19 October 2011. The circular dated 19 October 2011, does not impose any fresh or new condition and merely reiterates the earlier decision and requires compliance. Hence no case for interference is made out. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner undertakes to pay the deficit Court fee within a period of one week from today. 3. In this view of the matter and having regard to the earlier judgment of this Court dated 5 October 2011 which holds the field, we are not inclined to take any different view. We accordingly dismiss the Petition. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)