Alternative statutory remedy barred writ challenge to customs penalty orders; non-quotation of provisions was not a jurisdictional defect.

Writ petitions challenging customs penalty orders were held not ordinarily maintainable where an effective statutory appeal was available. Alleged violation of natural justice could be examined in the appellate forum, and the existence of a pre-deposit condition was not enough to bypass the appeal remedy. The court noted that non-quotation or wrong quotation of the relevant penal provision does not, by itself, create a jurisdictional defect where the authority otherwise has competence. In the absence of any exceptional ground, the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962, on the grounds of alleged violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The impugned penalty orders were appealable under the statutory scheme. The pleaded grounds of non-quotation of the relevant sub-clauses and other alleged procedural lapses did not disclose a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the matter. Non-quoting or wrong quoting of provisions, by itself, does not render an order illegal where the authority otherwise has competence. The alleged breach of natural justice could be examined in the statutory appeal, and the existence of a pre-deposit requirement was not a valid reason to bypass the appellate remedy. The writ jurisdiction, though wide, is ordinarily not exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists and no exceptional ground is made out.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and the parties were directed to work out the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty orders failed at the threshold of maintainability, leaving the petitioners to pursue the appeal provided by statute.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition will ordinarily not be entertained where an effective statutory appeal is available, and mere non-quotation of the exact penal provision does not create a jurisdictional error or justify bypassing that remedy.

---