Writ of mandamus requires a legal right, and foreign suppliers could not bypass customs remedies to seek re-export

Article 226 relief was unavailable because mandamus lies only to enforce a legally enforceable right, and the foreign petitioners could not rely on fundamental rights unavailable to foreigners in these customs proceedings. The request for re-export was also unsuitable for writ adjudication because ownership of the goods was disputed, the bank held the shipping documents, and confiscation/adjudication under the Customs Act was pending. The existence of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 129A further weighed against exercise of writ discretion, so the High Court declined to grant the requested mandamus.

---

---

Issues: Whether foreign suppliers had a legally enforceable right to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing re-export of the goods, and whether the existence of confiscation proceedings and statutory remedies under the Customs Act, 1962 barred such relief.

Analysis: The Court held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked only to enforce a legal right, and that a foreign company cannot rely on the fundamental rights unavailable to foreigners to challenge customs action in these circumstances. It further held that the petitioners could not maintain a mandamus for re-export because the disputed ownership of the goods, the presence of the bank as holder of the documents, and the pending customs adjudication raised matters not suitable for writ adjudication. The Court also emphasized that the Customs Act, 1962 provided an appellate remedy under Section 129A, and that the existence of such statutory remedies weighed against exercise of writ discretion.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 226, and the request for a writ directing re-export was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus under Article 226 lies only to enforce a legally enforceable right, and where foreign petitioners seek to challenge customs confiscation while an adequate statutory remedy exists, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.

---