2017 (3) TMI 343 - HC - Customs

Recovery proceedings - petitioner did not file any appeal within time prescribed and impugned order has attained finality, and pursuant to the said order, recovery proceedings have been initiated. Now, order dated 28.3.2003 is proposed to be challenged in 2017 by means of this writ petition and the explanation is that the said order was not served upon petitioner - Held that - There is no other explanation with regard to the delay and laches. Delay and laches constitute substantial reason for disentitling relief in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - We find no justification to entertain the writ petition after more than 13 years, particularly when statutory appeal was also available but the same was not filed and the order has attained finality - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file an appeal against the order of confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Dispute regarding the communication of the order to the petitioner.
3. Delay and laches in challenging the order dated 28.3.2003.
4. Justifiability of entertaining the writ petition after a significant delay.
5. Relief sought against the recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the failure of the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of confiscation, which was appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court notes that the petitioner did not file any such appeal, leading to the order attaining finality.

2. A dispute arises regarding the communication of the order to the petitioner. While the petitioner claims the order was not communicated, the respondent presents evidence of the order being sent via speed post. The petitioner's affidavit stating the non-availability of the document at the post office lacks a categorical assertion that the document was not served upon him.

3. The court emphasizes the delay and laches in challenging the order dated 28.3.2003, which has significant legal implications. Various legal precedents are cited to establish that delay and laches are substantial reasons for denying relief in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The judgment scrutinizes the justifiability of entertaining the writ petition after more than 13 years, especially when a statutory appeal was available but not filed, resulting in the order attaining finality. The court concludes that there is no justification for entertaining the petition after such a prolonged delay.

5. Lastly, the relief sought against the recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue is examined. The court notes that since the recovery of the amount is consequential and the petitioner did not challenge the relevant orders, the case does not warrant intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed based on the above considerations.