TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sharma, AOR. JUDGMENT 1. This civil appeal, by special leave granted on 17th September, 2012, impugns the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2011 [impugned order] of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur [High Court], whereby the appellant's writ petition D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6203 of 2009 came to be dismissed on the ground of omission of the appellant to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal provided by the Customs Act, 1962 [1962 Act] as well as on merits. 2. The facts leading to presentation of the writ petition before the High Court are not in dispute. On 27th September, 1992, alleged smuggled silver weighing 252.177 kgs came to be seized. By an order dated 7th May, 1996, the respondent no. 3 [C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appeal under Section 130A of the Act, which he did not pursue. Thus, the High Court declined to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. One other reason was assigned by the High Court for holding that the appellant did not deserve relief. The High Court noted that the order dated 14th May, 2003 of the criminal revisional court (the court of the Additional Sessions Judge), which set aside the Special Magistrate's direction contained in an order dated 12th February, 2002 to return the seized silver, was never challenged by the appellant. In effect, when there was no order directing return of silver, the appellant could not have asked for the relief in a writ petition. 5. We have heard Ms. Chitrangda Rast....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Md. Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86 and Titaghur Paper Mills v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 has, in Godrej Sarah Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95, reiterated that availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of a writ court. It was also explained how "entertainability of a writ petition" is a concept distinct from the concept of "maintainability of a writ petition". 8. However, this particular appeal unfolds a fact situation which requires consideration of the issue from a different perspective. We wish to justify our conclusions by referring to two old-era Constitution Bench decisions of high authority, which have seemingly faded into obscurity but the significa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the article. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the court will not entertain a petition for a writ under article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which, without being unduly onerous, provides an equally....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he writ petitioner was absolved from the normal obligation to exhaust his statutory remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If a petitioner has disabled himself from availing himself of the statutory remedy by his own fault in not doing so within the prescribed time, he cannot certainly be permitted to urge that as a ground for the Court dealing with his petition under Article 226 to exercise its discretion in his favour. Indeed, the second passage extracted from the judgment of the learned C.J. in Mohammed Nooh case with its reference to the right to appeal being lost 'through no fault of his own' emphasizes this aspect of the Rule." (emphasis ours) In essence, this Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eking 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 [1963 Act]. As such, 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. 15. In our considered opinion, 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 jurisdic....