Writ jurisdiction limited by pending statutory appeal and ineffective relief against a former office-holder in customs dispute.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against the same customs order and that appeal remained pending. The court treated the pending appellate remedy as a bar to parallel writ proceedings on the same grievance. It also held that no effective writ relief could issue against a named former Collector who had already ceased to hold office, especially where no successor or the Union of India was impleaded. The writ proceedings were therefore dismissed on technical grounds, and the dismissal was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when a statutory appeal against the customs order had already been filed and was still pending; (ii) whether any effective writ relief could be granted against a person who had ceased to hold the office against which the impugned orders were directed.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when a statutory appeal against the customs order had already been filed and was still pending.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar recourse to writ jurisdiction, but the position is materially different where the party has already invoked the statutory appellate remedy and that appeal remains undecided. In such a situation, the writ court is not to be moved on the same grievance while the statutory remedy is still pending.

Conclusion: The writ application was not maintainable on this ground and the contention was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether any effective writ relief could be granted against a person who had ceased to hold the office against which the impugned orders were directed.

Analysis: The impugned directions were sought against the former Collector of Customs by name, although he had already ceased to hold that office. No amendment was made to bring on record the successor or the Union of India. In those circumstances, an order against the named respondent would be ineffective and meaningless because no valid and executable direction could be issued against a person who was no longer in office for the acts complained of.

Conclusion: No effective writ relief could be granted on the application as framed and this contention was against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on technical grounds and the dismissal of the writ proceedings was sustained, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition is not maintainable where the statutory appeal against the same order has already been invoked and remains pending, and writ relief cannot be granted against a respondent who is no longer the proper authority so as to make any effective order impossible.

---