2011 (7) TMI 996 - HC - Customs

Writ petition goods of the petitioner was auctioned by the Respondent for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. goods of the appellant was wrongly auctioned without following the procedure, the Writ Petition was filed to recover the value of the goods Held that - Respondent has never admitted the case of the appellant herein and they disputed the entire facts. According to them, goods were sold after following the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Customs Act and Rules made therein. - In a case of recovery of amount with interest the remedy open to the appellant is to file a regular civil suit and it cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution for its redressal. - Writ Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality and correctness of the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the Learned Single Judge.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the legality and correctness of the dismissal of its Writ Petition by the Learned Single Judge. The appellant filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction for the Respondent to pay a specific sum with interest, contending that their goods were wrongly auctioned without following proper procedures. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition citing disputed questions of facts and law, stating that such disputes should be adjudicated in a regular civil suit rather than a Writ Petition. The appellant argued that since the Customs Department admitted its mistake, there were no disputed questions of facts and law, making the petition maintainable. However, the Respondent disputed the appellant's claims, asserting that the goods were auctioned following the Customs Act and Rules. The main issue in the Writ Appeal was whether the Learned Single Judge's decision warranted interference in an intra-court appeal.

The court, after hearing both parties, concluded that the appellant could not maintain a Writ Petition as the Respondent disputed the appellant's contentions. The court held that in a case of recovery with interest, the appropriate remedy for the appellant was to file a regular civil suit rather than invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for redressal. Therefore, the court found no merits in the appeal and upheld the decision of the Learned Single Judge, stating that there was no error in rejecting the Writ Petition on grounds of maintainability. The Writ Appeal was dismissed, with the appellant advised to seek redressal in a civil court for their claim.