2025 (11) TMI 1377 - SC - Customs

Writ plea dismissed where alternative remedy under Section 130A Customs Act existed and Article 226 invoked belatedly

Rikhab Chand Jain Versus Union Of India & Ors.

SC upheld the HC's dismissal of the writ petition challenging a CEGAT order, holding that when the statute provides an alternative, equally efficacious ... Dismissal of petition on the ground of omission of the appellant to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal provided by the Customs Act, 1962 - justification in refusing to entertain the writ petition of the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari - HELD THAT:- While deciding whether to entertain a petition under Article 226 bearing in mind the precedents in the field, a writ court ought to additionally notice the forum designated by the statute for the litigant to approach. This is necessary because the alternative forum that is provided by the statute has to be one which can dispense speedy and efficacious relief. However, as in the present case, if the statutorily designated alternative forum happens to be the high court itself whose jurisdiction under Article 226 is invoked and not any ordinary statutory functionary/tribunal, refusal to entertain the petition should be the rule and entertaining it an exception. Reference made to the Constitution Bench decision in Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid, Superintendent of Taxes [1964 (2) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT]. In Thansingh Nathmal, this Court had the occasion to lay down a principle of law which is salutary and not to be found in any other previous decision rendered by it. The principle, plainly, is that, if a remedy is available to a party before the high court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226, for, that would allow the machinery set up by the concerned statute to be bye-passed. Since the appellant had a remedy by way of a reference before the High Court against the order dated 23rd June, 2000 of the CEGAT, it is not considered refusal to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant to be so fundamentally incorrect that interference is warranted. In the present case, the order of the CEGAT was subjected to challenge by the appellant well after the prescribed period of limitation for seeking a reference by making an application under Section 130A of the 1962 Act (as it then existed). Although, an explanation was sought to be given by the appellant why the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked earlier, we are not impressed. The belated invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court could not have been justified by the appellant by taking the plea of pursuing remedy elsewhere. Even otherwise, such an explanation could well have been offered in an application seeking condonation of delay in presentation of the application under Section 130A of the 1962 Act before the High Court. We have not found any provision in the 1962 Act which either expressly or by necessary implication excluded the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - thus, in terms of Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act, the High Court in its reference jurisdiction could have well been approached with a request to condone the delay in presentation of the application under Section 130A of the 1962 Act. The appellant having had a remedy before the High Court in a separate jurisdiction which was equally efficacious, he indulged in the (mis)adventure of invoking its writ jurisdiction which was rightly not entertained. The writ petition lacked the basic pleadings and hence, the High Court did not fall in error in dismissing it even on merits - Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, was justified in refusing to entertain a petition for certiorari where an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal/reference to the High Court under the Customs Act, 1962 existed and was not pursued within the prescribed period. 2. Whether the existence of an alternative remedy provided by the statute, when that alternative forum is the High Court itself (in a different jurisdiction), ordinarily precludes entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 and when exceptions to that rule should apply. 3. Whether the petitioner's delay and failure to seek condonation of delay in invoking the statutory remedy (Section 130A/Section 130 framework) justified refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction. 4. Whether the writ court erred on merits in holding that objections to confiscation were not sufficiently pleaded as having been raised before the tribunal (CEGAT) and left unconsidered. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Whether refusal to entertain writ petition was justified when an alternative statutory remedy existed and was not exhausted Legal framework: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and may be exercised subject to self-imposed limitations where an alternative statutory remedy exists that provides an equally efficacious and not unduly onerous relief. The Customs Act, 1962 provides appellate/reference remedies (including a reference to the High Court under its statutory scheme) for challenging orders of confiscation and penalty. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on established principles in its jurisprudence reiterating that availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction but that ordinarily the writ court will decline to entertain petitions where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists and is capable of speedy and efficacious redress. The Court also relied on earlier Constitution Bench pronouncements emphasizing that the High Court should not be used to bypass statutory machinery, and that a petitioner who has disabled himself from availing the statutory remedy by his own fault cannot ordinarily invoke Article 226. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied the principle that where the statute itself designates a forum (including the High Court in another jurisdiction) for aggrieved parties to obtain redress, the discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction should generally be refused so as not to bypass the statutory machinery. It held that the availability of a remedy before the High Court in a separate jurisdiction (by statutory reference/appeal) was an equally efficacious remedy, hence the writ petition was properly declined. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A writ court should ordinarily refuse to entertain a writ petition where an alternative statutory remedy exists which is equally efficacious, including where that statutory remedy entails approaching the High Court in another jurisdiction; a petitioner who fails to pursue such remedy may be refused writ relief. Obiter - General observations on the breadth of Article 226 and distinctions between entertainability and maintainability are explanatory but consistent with the ratio. Conclusions: The High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy which was not pursued within the statutory regime; refusal to exercise discretion did not warrant interference. Issue 2 - Effect of the alternative forum being the High Court itself (in another jurisdiction) on exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction Legal framework: When the statute designates a forum that can provide speedy and efficacious relief, courts should avoid permitting Article 226 to be used to circumvent the statutory route. Special significance arises when the statutorily-designated forum is the High Court (albeit in another jurisdiction), because entertaining the petition in the same High Court would bypass the statutory procedure. Precedent Treatment: The Court drew on Constitution Bench authority holding that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and ought not normally to be exercised where alternative statutory remedies exist, particularly where the alternative is to approach the High Court in another jurisdiction under the statute. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that if the statutory alternative directs the litigant to the High Court in a separate jurisdiction, then refusal to entertain a writ petition invoking the same High Court's Article 226 jurisdiction should be the rule; entertaining it would frustrate the statutory scheme and allow bypass of the designated procedure. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an alternative remedy under statute is to approach the High Court in a separate jurisdiction, the High Court should generally decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction so as not to bypass the statutory forum. Obiter - Emphasis on the need for the statutory forum to be capable of speedy and efficacious relief. Conclusions: The presence of a statutory remedy which itself contemplates recourse to a High Court in a different jurisdiction is a strong ground for declining Article 226 relief in the High Court approached, and the High Court's refusal was proper in such circumstances. Issue 3 - Relevance of petitioner's delay and failure to seek condonation in statutory forum Legal framework: While there is no fixed period of limitation for invoking writ jurisdiction, invocation must be with expedition and within a reasonable period; the statutory period for the alternative remedy provides a useful indication of what is reasonable. The Limitation Act provisions relating to condonation of delay apply unless excluded explicitly or by necessary implication. Precedent Treatment: The Court reiterated prior authority that a petitioner who, through his own fault, loses his statutory remedy may not be entitled to discretionary writ relief. The Court also treated the statutory limitation governing reference/appeal as indicative of reasonable time for invoking writs. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the order of the appellate tribunal was challenged by the petitioner well after the statutory period for seeking a statutory reference/appeal; the petitioner's explanation for delay was unpersuasive and, in any event, the petitioner could have sought condonation of delay under the Limitation Act while pursuing the statutory remedy. The Court found no exclusion of Limitation Act provisions from the Customs Act and thus concluded the High Court in its reference jurisdiction could have condoned delay. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Unexplained or unjustified delay in pursuing the statutory remedy, when the statutory regime provides means to seek condonation, is a valid basis for refusing writ relief. Obiter - General comments on what constitutes a 'reasonable period' are illustrative. Conclusions: The petitioner's belated approach and failure to seek condonation in the statutory forum reinforced the propriety of declining writ relief; the High Court's reliance on delay was justified. Issue 4 - Whether the High Court erred on merits in finding that objections to confiscation were not sufficiently pleaded as raised before the tribunal and left unconsidered Legal framework: Writ petitions must contain material averments of fact and proper pleadings; to invoke non-consideration by an inferior authority as a ground, the petitioner must plead and verify that the point was raised before the authority and was not considered. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied routine pleading principles and practice, noting that not all grounds listed in a petition are necessarily argued at hearing; courts require specific, verified allegations to examine a claim that a tribunal failed to consider a point. Interpretation and reasoning: Although the record showed the confiscation order was included in the tribunal appeal, the writ petition did not contain appropriate pleadings asserting that a specific point of invalidity was raised before the tribunal and remained unadjudicated. The Court emphasized the necessity for direct challenge and verified pleading to claim non-consideration; absence of such pleading justified dismissal on merits. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A writ petition lacking specific, verified pleadings that an issue was raised before a tribunal and left undecided cannot sustain a complaint of non-consideration; dismissal on merits in such circumstances is proper. Obiter - Observations on common practice that not all grounds listed are argued are explanatory. Conclusions: The High Court did not err in concluding the writ petition was devoid of sufficient pleadings on the alleged non-consideration of the confiscation issue and correctly dismissed it on merits. Overall Conclusion The Court upheld the High Court's refusal to entertain the writ petition and its dismissal on merits: (i) the petitioner had an equally efficacious statutory remedy before the High Court in another jurisdiction which was not pursued; (ii) the petitioner's delay and failure to seek condonation supported refusal of discretionary writ relief; and (iii) pleadings before the writ court were inadequate to substantiate a claim that the tribunal failed to consider specific grounds of challenge to confiscation. Accordingly, no interference with the impugned order was warranted.