2018 (6) TMI 534 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - statutory remedy available - Revocation of CHA License - principles of natural justice denied - time limitation - the enquiry report was not furnished - the time limit prescribed not adhered to - Held that - We do not want to deal with the same on merits, inasmuch as there is no manifest illegality in directing the writ petitioner to approach, the forum provided under the Customs Act, 1962 - the Hon ble Supreme Court, as well as this court, held that, ordinarily, writ petitions should not be entertained when the statutes provide for an effective and alternative remedy, moreso, in revenue matters. Reliance can be placed in the case of Union of India v. T.R.Verma, 1957 (9) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT , where the Hon ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless there are good grounds to do, otherwise. Where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, the party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. We permit the writ petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revocation of Customs House Agent Licence based on violation of natural justice and failure to adhere to time limits. Entertaining writ petition when alternative statutory remedy is available.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the revocation of a Customs House Agent Licence. The petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice and non-adherence to prescribed time limits. The High Court rejected the petition, citing the availability of an effective alternative remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. The court emphasized the principle that writ petitions should not be entertained when statutory remedies exist, especially in revenue matters. The judgment referred to various legal precedents highlighting the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.

The court cited the decision in Union of India v. T.R.Verma, emphasizing that litigants should pursue available remedies rather than invoking the High Court's special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Additionally, references were made to cases like C.A.Ibrahim v. ITO and Karnataka Chemical Industries v. Union of India, stressing the need to exhaust statutory appeals before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The judgment underscored that the existence of a statutory remedy should deter litigants from directly approaching the High Court.

Moreover, the judgment discussed the general principles to be followed in entertaining writ petitions when alternative remedies are available, as outlined in U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.Pandey. The court highlighted that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a matter of discretion, not compulsion. The judgment also referenced decisions like United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, emphasizing that the High Court should insist on exhausting statutory remedies before entertaining writ petitions, especially in cases involving public dues or financial institutions.

Furthermore, the court cited cases such as Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and Shauntlabai Derkar Vs. Maroti Dewaji Wadaskar to reinforce the principle that statutory forums should be utilized for grievance redressal before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. The judgment reiterated that the High Court should not entertain petitions when effective alternative remedies are available under the relevant statute. The court's decision in this case upheld the dismissal of the writ petition and allowed the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal within a specified timeframe.