Delay in invoking statutory appeal and estoppel by concession barred challenge to destruction and confiscation order.

A writ challenge to a destruction and confiscation order was found unsustainable where the petitioner failed to use the statutory appeal within the prescribed seven-day period and approached writ jurisdiction only after delay. The court also noted that the order had been made on the basis of the petitioner's own submission that destruction could be permitted and re-export was not possible; a party cannot later impeach an order invited by its own concession, so estoppel applied. The challenge was therefore rejected, while the issue of the destruction authority's jurisdiction was left open and limited liberty regarding possible re-export was preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the destruction order was barred by delay and the failure to invoke the statutory appeal within the prescribed time. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the confiscation and destruction order after having consented before the authority to destruction of the cargo.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the destruction order was barred by delay and the failure to invoke the statutory appeal within the prescribed time.

Analysis: The destruction order was passed on an earlier date, while the writ petition was filed much later. The remedy under the relevant import control regime carried a short appeal period of seven days, reflecting the need for prompt challenge against adverse destruction orders. In such circumstances, recourse to writ jurisdiction to bypass the expired statutory remedy was not considered legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the destruction order was held to be barred on account of delay and non-availment of the statutory appeal within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the confiscation and destruction order after having consented before the authority to destruction of the cargo.

Analysis: The confiscation and destruction order was issued on the basis of the petitioner's own submission before the authority that destruction could be permitted and that re-export was not possible. A party who has obtained or invited an order on the basis of its own concession cannot later turn around and dispute that very order. The petitioner was therefore precluded from assailing the order on principles of estoppel.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation and destruction order was rejected as barred by estoppel arising from the petitioner's own concession.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition could not be sustained, though the question of the destruction authority's jurisdiction was left open and a limited liberty regarding possible re-export was preserved.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge will not be entertained to defeat an expired statutory appeal period, and a party is estopped from impeaching an order made on the basis of its own concession before the competent authority.

---