Alternative statutory remedy under the Customs Act barred writ jurisdiction, and the petition abated under the amended constitutional rule.

A writ petition challenging a Customs Act order was not maintainable because the statute provided an effective appellate remedy under Section 128. The amended Article 226 barred entertainment of such a petition where the alternative remedy existed, and Section 58 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act caused pending petitions of that kind to abate. On that basis, the petition failed and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative appellate remedy under the Customs Act and the resulting bar under the amended Article 226, and whether the petition stood abated under the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order passed under the Customs Act. The statutory scheme provided an appeal against such orders under Section 128 of the Customs Act, giving the petitioner an effective alternative remedy. The Court further applied Section 58 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, under which pending petitions that could not have been entertained in view of the amended Article 226 would stand abated. Since the writ petition was one that could not be maintained after the amendment in the presence of an alternative remedy, it failed on that ground.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal is available against the impugned order, a writ petition barred by the amended Article 226 cannot be entertained and stands liable to fail under the constitutional abatement provision.

---