2020 (1) TMI 313 - HC - Customs

Disposal of petition - petitioner is aggrieved with the disposing off the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum - appellant contends that the question of approaching the appropriate forum would not arise for consideration and the writ petition has to be decided on merits - HELD THAT - There are no grounds to interfere in this appeal. During the pendency of the petition, the learned Single Judge has passed various orders and in pursuant to that, the respondents have also passed orders, which are already a part of the record. Writ petition was filed for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to duty credit scrip of ₹ 1,35,27,742/- vide Annexure C to the writ petition at the rate of 2% of incremental growth in exports during 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2014. Since, interim orders were passed and subsequent orders have also been passed by the authorities based on such directions, it is necessary that the orders passed by the Authorities require to be challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate forum. It is also just and necessary that the petitioner be granted liberty to challenge those orders since subsequent orders have been passed by the authorities pursuant to filing of the writ petition. The writ petition cannot be considered on the pleadings which were made after filing of the writ petition. The writ appeal is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to question the validity of the order dated 09.10.2018 as well as the communication dated 06.11.2018.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order dated 04.09.2019 passed in writ petition No.32625 of 2018.
2. Consideration of case during pendency of writ petition and subsequent orders by authorities.
3. Contention regarding approaching appropriate forum and relief sought in terms of order dated 09.10.2018.
4. Granting liberty to challenge orders passed by authorities and necessity of approaching appropriate forum.
5. Disposal of writ appeal with liberty to approach appropriate forum and consideration of time spent by petitioner.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 04.09.2019 passed in writ petition No.32625 of 2018, where the learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The appellant was aggrieved by this order and sought further relief.

2. Various orders were passed by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition, directing the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner. Some orders were set aside while some were affirmed. Ultimately, the respondents passed the order dated 09.10.2018 and a communication dated 06.11.2018. The writ petition was disposed off with liberty to challenge these orders.

3. The appellant's counsel contended that there was no need to approach the appropriate forum and that the writ petition should be decided on merits. The relief sought by the appellant was in terms of the order dated 09.10.2018.

4. The Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, found no grounds to interfere in the appeal. It was noted that various orders were passed during the pendency of the petition, and subsequent orders were based on those directions. The Court held that it was necessary for the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the authorities before the appropriate forum. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge those orders.

5. The writ appeal was disposed off with liberty given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to question the validity of the orders dated 09.10.2018 and 06.11.2018. The time spent by the petitioner before the Court was to be considered in the proceedings. Pending I.As were rejected as part of the judgment.