2006 (11) TMI 632 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: The judgment deals with the issue of whether a writ petition can be entertained when an alternative remedy is available under the Central Excise Act, specifically u/s 35-H, and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Central Excise Act u/s 35-H: The learned Standing Counsel argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the availability of a reference under section 35-H of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner contended that since the writ petition was admitted after a significant delay, it should not be dismissed solely on the ground of alternative remedy. The Court referred to previous cases where writ petitions were dismissed on similar grounds, emphasizing that statutory remedies should be exhausted before resorting to writ jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction under Article 226: The Court cited various decisions, including the case of U.P. Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey, where the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions when statutory remedies are available unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The Court reiterated that statutory remedies should be preferred over writ petitions, except in cases involving fundamental rights infringement or jurisdictional issues.

Discretionary power of High Court: The judgment highlighted the discretionary nature of the High Court's power to grant relief under Article 226, even when alternative remedies exist. The Court referred to several cases where the High Court refused to grant writs if adequate alternative remedies were available. The judgment emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy does not necessarily exclude the High Court's jurisdiction to grant relief under Article 226.

Conclusion: The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, following the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was advised to apply for the return of the certified copy of the Tribunal's order after obtaining a photocopy.