2025 (9) TMI 689 - HC - Customs

Writ petition dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory remedies; alleged breach of natural justice requires factual appraisal on appeal

HC dismissed the writ petition, holding an alternate and efficacious remedy was available and therefore the petition was not maintainable. The court found ... Maintainability of petition - no alternate or efficacious remedy except for filing this Writ Petition - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is satisfied that no case is made out to entertain this Petition since the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available. The violation of the principles of natural justice is one of the grounds upon which a Petitioner could have been excused from exhausting alternative remedies. However, this is only in situations where the violation is apparent. In a case where such a violation must be established based on an appreciation of factual aspects, normally, there is no good reason why a Petition should be entertained when, in fact, all such matters can be effectively considered by the Appellate Authority. In the case of Oberoi Constructions Limited V/s. Union of India And Ors. [2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] several decisions of this Court has been referred and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the issue of exhaustion of alternate remedies. By following the reasoning in the said decision and the decisions relied upon therein, this Petition is not entertained. Petition dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Writ Court should entertain a petition challenging an administrative order imposing penalties where an alternate statutory appeal remedy exists. 2. Whether an asserted violation of Article 14 can justify bypassing the statutory appellate remedy and maintainability of a writ petition. 3. Whether an alleged breach of the principles of natural justice (non-service of notice due to change of office address) warrants immediate writ relief without exhaustion of the alternate remedy. 4. Whether the Appellate Authority should be directed to waive limitation and decide the appeal on merits if the appellant institutes an appeal within a court-specified short period. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entertaining Writ Despite Alternate Statutory Remedy Legal framework: The principle of exhaustion of alternate or efficacious statutory remedies bars the High Court from ordinarily entertaining writ petitions under Article 226/227 when a specific appeal or remedy is available under the statute. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on prior decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court (as summarized in a recent decision referred to by the Court) that emphasize refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the petitioner admittedly had a remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The presence of that remedy, without a clear, exceptional justification to invoke writ jurisdiction, precludes entertainment. The Court emphasized that bare averments about lack of alternative remedy are insufficient; the petitioner must demonstrate that the statutory remedy is not efficacious or that exceptional circumstances justify bypassing it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists, a writ petition challenging an administrative penalty will not ordinarily be entertained; petitioners must ordinarily exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the writ court. Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on this ground; the Court declined to entertain the petition and granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal. Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Article 14 as Ground to Bypass Statutory Remedy Legal framework: Fundamental rights (including Article 14) may warrant immediate judicial intervention where there is a clear breach that cannot be remedied adequately by the appellate process. Precedent Treatment: The Court recognized authorities where writ jurisdiction is invoked for protection of fundamental rights, but applied established principles requiring a demonstrable and prima facie violation rather than bald assertions. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner asserted an Article 14 violation but failed to particularize how equality before the law or equal protection was breached. The Court found that such a contention, even if raised, could be adequately addressed by the Appellate Authority on appeal. The Court drew a distinction between apparent, self-evident breaches of fundamental rights (which may justify immediate writ relief) and allegations that require factual appreciation - the latter are better suited for the appellate forum. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A bald or unparticularized claim of Article 14 violation does not justify bypassing an alternate efficacious remedy; where the alleged violation requires factual appreciation, the appellate authority is the appropriate forum. Conclusion: Article 14 contention did not justify entertaining the writ; the petitioner must pursue the appellate remedy. Issue 3: Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice (Non-Service of Notice / Change of Address) Legal framework: Breach of principles of natural justice (procedural unfairness, failure of notice) can, in appropriate cases, justify immediate judicial intervention; however, such breach must be apparent on the face of the record to warrant bypassing statutory remedies. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied the established approach that only apparent and demonstrable breaches of natural justice excuse exhaustion of alternate remedies; where the existence of breach depends on disputed facts, the appellate process suffices. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner contended that no notice was served because its office had shifted and the new address was not intimated to the respondent. The petitioner conceded it had not informed the respondent, while the respondent contended investigations and involvement in restricted exports explained non-intimation. The Court declined to resolve these factual disputes in the writ process, observing that to determine whether natural justice was violated would require factual appreciation. Accordingly, the alleged breach was not an apparent legal error that would justify immediate writ relief. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An asserted breach of natural justice will excuse exhaustion of statutory remedies only where the breach is manifest on the face of the record; disputed factual questions regarding notice are to be examined by the appellate authority. Conclusion: The natural justice ground did not render the writ maintainable; petitioner must pursue the appellate remedy. Issue 4: Direction on Limitation and Appellate Consideration Legal framework: Courts may, in appropriate circumstances, grant limited relief by permitting an appeal to be filed within a specified time and directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without being prejudiced by limitation objections. Precedent Treatment: The Court followed its recent reasoning in a referred decision that allowed filing of an appeal within a short window and directed the appellate forum to decide on merits without referring to limitation, subject to compliance with legal formalities. Interpretation and reasoning: Recognizing the statutory remedy and to protect the petitioner from limitation-based dismissal resulting from the Court's refusal to entertain the writ, the Court allowed the petitioner four weeks to file the appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits without taking objection to limitation, provided all legal formalities are complied with. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a writ is declined for non-exhaustion of statutory remedies, the High Court may grant a limited period to institute the statutory appeal and direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without relying on limitation, to ensure effective remedy. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ but granted liberty to file an appeal within four weeks and directed the Appellate Authority to decide on merits without raising limitation, keeping all merits contentions open and excluding any observations made in the dismissal order from consideration on appeal. Cross-References and Miscellaneous Conclusions 1. The Court explicitly left all merits contentions open for adjudication by the Appellate Authority and directed that observations in the dismissal order shall not be taken into account in deciding the appeal if filed within the specified period. 2. The Court followed the reasoning in the earlier referred decision(s) on exhaustion of alternate remedies and declined to make factual determinations that are properly within the appellate process.