Writ petition dismissed, petitioner advised to seek redress through appellate bench. Importance of statutory remedies reiterated.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should seek redress through the appellate Bench of the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and judicial precedents while acknowledging the High Court's broad jurisdiction under Article 226.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an alternative remedy affects the High Court’s power of judicial review.
2. Whether the term “every order” under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, includes interim orders.
3. Whether the Tribunal's order demanding a pre-deposit (Ext.P4) and subsequent dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance (Ext.P12) are sustainable.
4. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against interlocutory orders when an alternative statutory remedy exists.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alternative Remedy and Judicial Review:
The judgment begins by addressing whether an alternative remedy affects the High Court’s power of judicial review. It is established that the restraint on judicial review is self-imposed and not absolute. The Court must be judicious and deferential to legislative wisdom. The judgment reiterates that the rule excluding writ jurisdiction on the grounds of an alternative remedy is discretionary, not compulsory. The petitioner’s counsel argued that alternative remedies do not bar the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing various precedents. The Court acknowledges that it has the jurisdiction to review judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative decisions even when alternative remedies exist.

2. Interpretation of “Every Order” under Section 130:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order demanding a pre-deposit (Ext.P4) and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance (Ext.P12). The Court examined whether the term “every order” under Section 130 of the Customs Act includes interim orders. It analyzed Section 130, which allows appeals to the High Court from every order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, provided it involves a substantial question of law. The judgment refers to precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Raj Kumar Shivhare, which interpreted similar provisions to include all orders, including interlocutory ones. The Court concluded that interim orders fall within the scope of Section 130, thus providing an alternative statutory remedy.

3. Sustainability of Tribunal’s Orders (Ext.P4 and Ext.P12):
The petitioner contended that the Tribunal’s order demanding a pre-deposit was discriminatory and caused immense prejudice. The Court noted that the Tribunal had not insisted on pre-deposits in similar cases and had remanded them for fresh adjudication. However, the Court refrained from examining the merits of the Tribunal’s orders, focusing instead on the procedural aspect. The Court emphasized that it is not within its province to examine the correctness of the Tribunal’s course of action. The judgment concluded that the Tribunal’s orders (Ext.P4 and Ext.P12) are interlocutory and fall within the scope of Section 130, thus providing an alternative remedy.

4. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Interlocutory Orders:
The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable against the interlocutory orders (Ext.P4 and Ext.P12) as they do not give rise to substantial questions of law under Section 130. The Court examined numerous precedents on the issue of alternative remedy and reiterated that the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226. However, the Court emphasized that judicial discipline demands compliance with precedential dictates. It concluded that the petitioner should approach the appellate Bench of the High Court to plead its case, as the interlocutory orders fall within the scope of Section 130, providing an alternative statutory remedy.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should seek redress through the appellate Bench of the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and judicial precedents while acknowledging the High Court’s broad jurisdiction under Article 226.

---