2001 (6) TMI 66 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions without exhausting statutory remedy of appeal.
2. Delay in filing writ petitions.
3. Allegations of arbitrary and malicious conduct by respondents.
4. Justifiability of invoking writ jurisdiction without exhausting appeal remedy.
5. Impact of delay on the validity of writ petitions.

Issue 1: Maintainability of writ petitions without exhausting statutory remedy of appeal.

The judgment addresses the contention that the petitioner, despite having a statutory remedy before CEGAT or other Appellate Authority, is not entitled to maintain the writ petitions without exhausting the appeal remedy. The petitioner argued that the writ petitions were filed in 1992 and it was permissible to approach the Court without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal. However, the Court held that on the facts of the case, the petitioner should have exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal before coming to the Court under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the violation of principles of natural justice could have been a better reason to approach the Court without exhausting the appeal remedy.

Issue 2: Delay in filing writ petitions.

The judgment highlights that the writ petitions had been pending for several years, with significant delays in filing each petition after the impugned orders. The Court noted that the delay in filing the petitions, ranging from six years to more than a decade, was fatal to the maintainability of the petitions. The Court observed that the petitioner had allowed the statutory appeals to become barred by limitation and the orders to become final before approaching the Court. The Court emphasized that such inordinate delays without any satisfactory explanations rendered the writ petitions untenable.

Issue 3: Allegations of arbitrary and malicious conduct by respondents.

The petitioner contended that the respondents had acted arbitrarily, maliciously, and vindictively to harass them, justifying their approach to the Court. However, the Court found that the petitioner had not specifically alleged mala fides against individual officers concerned. The Court held that without such specific allegations, it was sufficient for one of the respondents to file a counter affidavit. The Court did not find the arguments regarding the conduct of respondents persuasive in the absence of concrete allegations of mala fides.

Issue 4: Justifiability of invoking writ jurisdiction without exhausting appeal remedy.

The judgment underscores that despite the considerable delay in filing the writ petitions, the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal, which was deemed efficacious. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to utilize the available appeal remedy before approaching the Court was a significant factor in dismissing the writ petitions. The Court reiterated that the remedy of appeal should have been pursued before invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue 5: Impact of delay on the validity of writ petitions.

The Court concluded that the delay in filing the writ petitions, coupled with the failure to exhaust the remedy of appeal, rendered the petitions highly belated and untenable. The Court held that the petitioner's silence for several years, allowing the impugned proceedings to become final, precluded them from challenging the orders after such a prolonged period. The Court emphasized that the delay, without a satisfactory explanation, was fatal to the writ petitions, leading to their dismissal.

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed all three writ petitions, emphasizing the belated nature of the petitions, the petitioner's failure to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal, and the absence of bona fides in moving the petitions after significant delays. The Court held that the petitioner's inaction for years and the finality of the impugned proceedings due to the delay precluded them from challenging the orders through writ jurisdiction. The judgment highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to writ petitions and underscored the impact of delay on the validity of such petitions.