2017 (2) TMI 89 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - prayer for rehear and dispose of the matter once again on merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and considering the EODC already furnished by the petitioner - Held that - when the statute provides for filing an appeal against the order in original, the same cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition, by way of short circuiting the procedures. Needless to say that the appellate authority being a fact finding authority as well, will have to consider all aspects and decide the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner should go only before the appellate authority and raise all the contentions, including the reference to the events which had taken place subsequent to the passing of the impugned order - petition dismissed, being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order in original, maintainability of writ petition, opportunity of personal hearing, appeal before appellate authority

In this judgment by the Madras High Court, the petitioner challenged an order in original passed by the third respondent on 30.03.2013, seeking a rehearing with an opportunity for personal hearing and consideration of documents. The court noted that a statutory appeal was available against the order. The petitioner argued that subsequent developments and lack of notice warranted a fresh hearing by the Original Authority. However, the court emphasized that the proper recourse was to appeal before the appellate authority, which serves as a fact-finding body. The court highlighted that the petitioner could raise all contentions, including post-order events, during the appeal process. The court observed that the impugned order was issued in 2013, with the writ petition filed in December 2016, citing reasons for non-appearance due to address change. The court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits without considering the delay in filing. The judgment underscored that the dismissal of the writ petition on maintainability grounds should not hinder the respondent from reviewing the matter independently and in compliance with the law. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.