2015 (6) TMI 971 - HC - Customs

Restoration of appeal - Held that - On a perusal of the earlier order dated 12.12.2009 passed in W.P. No.1244 of 2001, it is evident that the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The decision was taken on merits. It was not a case of dismissal for want of prosecution - Thereafter, the appellant, it appears, had not taken any step to approach the High Powered Committee till the Supreme Court had taken a decision in Electronics Corporation of India. - Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of a disposed writ petition based on subsequent pronouncements of law.

Analysis:
The case involved an intra-Court appeal against the rejection of an application for restoration of a disposed writ petition. The original writ petition, filed by the appellant-Corporation, challenged certain proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The writ petition was dismissed in 2009, with liberty granted to the appellant to seek redressal through the High Powered Committee. Subsequently, the Supreme Court withdrew certain directions related to dispute resolution committees in a different case. The appellant then filed an interim application seeking restoration of the disposed writ petition based on this change in law. However, the learned Single Judge concluded that a final decision on a writ petition cannot be revisited solely on the basis of subsequent legal developments.

Upon examining the case, the Court noted that the original writ petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy, not for want of prosecution. The dismissal was based on merits and granted the appellant the option to approach the High Powered Committee for grievance redressal. The Court highlighted that the appellant did not pursue this avenue until after the Supreme Court's decision in the other case. Consequently, the Court held that the disposed writ petition could not be revived at this stage, as the original decision was taken after considering the law at that time. The Court found the order rejecting restoration to be just and proper, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the rejection of the application for restoration of the disposed writ petition, emphasizing that a final decision on a petition cannot be overturned solely based on subsequent legal developments. The judgment highlighted the importance of pursuing available remedies in a timely manner and respecting the decisions made based on the law applicable at the time of the original judgment.