Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Vishwajeet Saramandal vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 18 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18707
1 WP-11619-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 18th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11619 of 2023
SHRI RAVI CHOURASIA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Raichandani (through V.C.) on behalf of Shri Ankit
Premchandani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Bharuka - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 11620 of 2023
SHRI VISHWAJEET SARAMANDAL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Raichandani (through V.C.) on behalf of Shri Ankit
Premchandani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Bharuka - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 21-Jul-25
5:43:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18707
2 WP-11619-2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11994 of 2023
SHRI MANISH KALANI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Raichandani (through V.C.) on behalf of Shri Ankit
Premchandani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Bharuka - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Regard being had to the similitude of controversy involved in the
aforementioned petitions, they are being heard analogously and disposed of
by this common order.
2. These bunch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners
challenging the validity and legality of the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by
respondent No.2 / Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Indore whereby
the company M/s MRK Pipes Ltd. as well as the Directors have been held
responsible to pay the penalty, custom duty, other duty and interest under the
provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1992').
3. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that
this is an order which has been passed in violation of principles of natural
justice. Petitioners were not given any notice by the respondent No.2 before
passing the impugned order by which tax duty and penalty have been
imposed upon them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18707
3 WP-11619-2023
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
no more Directors in the company therefore, the tax and penalty liability
have wrongly been fixed upon them. It is an admitted position that the notice
was issued only to M/s MRK Pipes Ltd. and not to its Directors. It is further
submitted that the impugned order has been passed in respect of the year
2014 when the petitioners were not Directors of the Company. Therefore,
the impugned action is time barred.
5. Shri Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the
petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners are having the remedy of
appeal as well as revision under the provisions of the Act of 1992. One of
the Directors-Shri J.C.Yadav filed writ petition No. 11617/2023 before this
Court and simultaneously also preferred an appeal before the appellate
authority. On 10.07.2025 he has withdrawn the writ petition in order to
pursue the appeal. Therefore, these petitions are also liable to be dismissed
due to availability of statutory remedy of appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently
argued that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of
natural justice, therefore the writ petitions are maintainable despite
availability of alternate remedy.
Heard the rival contentions. Perused the impugned order.
7. It is correct that a writ petition is maintainable even if there is
violation of principles of natural justice as has been held in case of Whirlpool
Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1 by the Apex
Court, that the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18707
4 WP-11619-2023
under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory
remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against
whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported
to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.
8. In case of Union of India v. Rubber Products Ltd., (2021) 14 SCC
688, the Apex Court has held as under :
''5. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid view taken by the High Court is
unsustainable on two grounds. In the first instance, writ petition itself was not
maintainable when there was alternate remedy available to the assessee under
the provisions of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the assessee should have
exhausted those statutory appeals. Even otherwise, on merits, the High Court
has allowed the writ petition wrongly. The High Court has glossed over the
vital fact that the order of Collector (Appeals) in the first round of litigation
was not accepted by the Department but was challenged. This plea did not fail
on merit but appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred. Therefore,
at the most, the said order of the Collector (Appeals) attained finality insofar as
period covered by the earlier show-cause notice is concerned and could not
have been binding precedent for future period.''
9. Further, in case of India v. Rajhans Impex (P) Ltd., (2022) 16
SCC 579, the Apex Court has observed that :
''4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
original writ petitioners has also fairly conceded that in that view of the matter,
the respondents herein original writ petitioners may be permitted to file the
statutory appeal before the appellate authority against the order-in-original to
be filed within a period of four weeks subject to complying with the other
requirements while preferring the statutory appeals. However, he has requested
to make observations that if appeal is preferred within a period of four weeks
from today the same be entertained without raising the issue of limitation and
it may be suitably observed that all the contentions which may be available to
the respective parties are kept open.
5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court dated 9-1-2020 passed in Rajhans Impex (P) Ltd. v. Union of India is
hereby quashed and set aside. However, it may be open for the respondents
original writ petitioners to prefer the statutory appeal against the order-in-
original and it is observed that if the same is filed within a period of four
weeks from today the same be considered in accordance with law and on
merits subject to complying with other requirements while preferring the
appeal such as pre-deposit, etc. however without raising the issue with respect
to limitation. All the contentions which may be available in law to the
respective parties are kept open.''
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18707
5 WP-11619-2023
10. But the fact remains that in the present case liability has been
fastened upon as many as six Directors along with Company to pay the
penalty and custom duty. Out of the six Directors, one has already preferred
an appeal before the appellate authority. Therefore, the order which has
already been challenged and pending for adjudication before the appellate
authority, therefore the same cannot be examined by a superior Court by way
of writ petition. Even so, the doors of the High Court are not being
permanently closed for the petitioners. After exhausting the remedy of
appeal, if any cause survives, the petitioners can very well approach this
Court. But the appellate authority which is an expert body of the subject
matter is required to examine the validity of the impugned order on the issue
of violation of principles of natural justice as well as on merit. No complex
issue is involved in the matter for which the High Court should entertain the
writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy. The issues of
violation of principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing can very
well be appreciated by the appellate authority.
11. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the
petitioners to approach the appellate authority in accordance with law.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of connected W.P.Nos.
11620/2023 and 11994/2023.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
