2017 (3) TMI 343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustoms lower in rank than a [Commissioner of Customs] may appeal to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order. The petitioner did not file any such appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that said order was not communicated but Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for revenue produced before us an entry of postal register and photo copy of the speed post receipt number EE717742054IN showing that the said order was communicated to the petitioner by speed post. 3. Today an affidavit has been filed by petitioner that he has inquired in the post office at Khajuriya but no such envelop is available. There is no categorical assertion th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....995 (5) SCC 628 it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993, it was said that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others, 1976 (3) SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 1330=2007)(1) Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (Supra). The aforesaid authorities of the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy." 6. We, therefore, find no justification to entertain the writ petition after more than 13 years, particularly when statutory appeal was also available but the same was not filed and the order has attained finality. 7. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he has challenged steps taken by respondents to recover amount mentioned in the order dated 28.3.2003 as arrears of land revenue, but we find that in the writ petition basically his relief is....