Maintainability of writ petition where alternative statutory revisional remedy exists; court allows revision and waives limitation briefly.

Maintainability of writ petitions in presence of an alternative statutory revisional remedy was addressed; the HC abstained from exercising writ jurisdiction because a revisional remedy under the Customs statute exists, and conferred liberty to invoke that revisional jurisdiction. The court directed that if revision is filed within two weeks it shall be entertained notwithstanding limitation, requiring the appellate authority to decide the revision within six months; this constitutes a directed condonation of delay to enable adjudication of the statutory revision while refusing immediate writ relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the respondent's order can be entertained notwithstanding the availability of a statutory revisional remedy under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a revision belatedly.

Analysis: The petition raises substantive complaints about alleged misdeclaration of textile products, but the respondent authority submits that a statutory revisional remedy under Section 129DD is available. The petitioner's failure to first invoke the revisional remedy is recorded. The Court confines itself to procedural relief by permitting the petitioner to exhaust the statutory revision route and by directing the appellate authority to entertain any revision filed within a limited time without reference to limitation and to decide it within a specified period.

Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to file a revision under Section 129DD within two weeks of receipt of the order; any such revision shall be entertained without reference to the period of limitation and disposed of in accordance with law within six months. No order as to costs.

---