Court Rejects Re-Challenge of Cashew Confiscation After Appellant Opted for Statutory Remedies Over Writ Petition.

The HC dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the confiscation of organic cashew kernels by customs authorities. Initially, the appellant withdrew their writ petition to pursue statutory appellate remedies against the confiscation order, which was later confirmed by the appellate authority. When the appellant attempted to re-challenge the order through a writ petition under Article 226, the HC held that their prior choice to pursue statutory remedies precluded them from seeking relief through a writ petition. The court emphasized that it would not interfere with appellate orders when statutory remedies had been elected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of organic cashew kernels by customs authorities.
2. Withdrawal of writ petition and seeking alternate remedy.
3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Confiscation of organic cashew kernels by customs authorities:
The appellant, a leading manufacturer and exporter of cashew based products, exported 400 cartons of organic cashew kernels which were rejected by overseas agency and returned. Subsequently, during inspection by customs authorities, 200 cartons were found unfit for home consumption, leading to a confiscation order and imposition of penalty. The appellant challenged the confiscation order in court, which initially separated the consignment into compliant and non-compliant portions. However, the appellant withdrew the writ petition, later filing a review petition alleging withdrawal without proper instructions. The review petition was disposed by reinstating the writ petition and directing the appellant to pursue statutory appellate remedy against the confiscation order.

Withdrawal of writ petition and seeking alternate remedy:
After the review petition, the appellate authority confirmed the confiscation order, which was then challenged in a fresh writ petition. The High Court observed that the appellant had chosen to pursue statutory remedies against the confiscation order, and cannot now challenge the order through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the appellant's conduct in choosing the statutory route earlier precluded them from seeking relief through the writ petition.

Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The appellant argued that due to practical difficulties and the perishable nature of the commodity, the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 for expeditious relief. However, the court held that while Article 226 can be invoked despite the existence of alternate remedies, the appellant's prior actions and choice to pursue statutory remedies precluded the High Court from intervening. The court emphasized that prudence required refraining from interfering with appellate orders passed by authorities in the hierarchy of appeals provided under the statute. The High Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the appellant's contentions on merits.

---