P.Kumar vs The Additional Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 20873 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 20873 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 November, 2024

Madras High Court

P.Kumar vs The Additional Commissioner on 4 November, 2024

                                                                       W.P.(MD)No.25834 of 2024

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 04.11.2024

                                                      CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

                                           W.P.(MD)No.25834 of 2024
                                                    and
                                          W.M.P.(MD)No.21925 of 2024

                P.Kumar                                                        ... Petitioner

                                                       Vs.

                The Additional Commissioner,
                O/o. the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),
                No.1, Williams Road,
                Cantonment,
                Trichy – 620 001.                                              ... Respondent

                PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
                order, the Order in Original No. TCP-CUS-PRV-JTC-107/2024 dated
                13.09.2024 passed by the respondent and quash the same.


                                     For Petitioner    : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan

                                     For Respondent    : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
                                                         Standing Counsel

                                                 ORDER

Heard Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the Order

dated 13.09.2024 passed by the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that

the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply which has not been considered at

all by the respondent. Even though an effective alternate remedy is available in

view that the order suffers from non application of mind, he would submit that

the order impugned would have to be set aside and remitted back to the

authority with a direction to consider the reply/objections made by the petitioner

dated 27.03.2024.

4. On the contrary, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

would draw attention of this Court to the order impugned and submit that the

claim of the petitioner had been considered by the respondent and only

thereafter orders have been passed. He would therefore submit that it cannot be

said that the respondent had not considered the claim of the petitioner. The

claim of the petitioner may have been rejected on a wrong premise, but that

cannot be a reason for him to file a Writ Petition without exhausting an

effective alternate remedy that is available to the petitioner and therefore, he

would submit that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels

appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is not disputed that there is an appeal remedy available to the

petitioner. It is well settled law that even when the appellate remedy is

available, this Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India when there is a violation of principles of natural justice,

arbitrariness and colorable exercise of power. In the present case, it is the

contention of the petitioner that his reply to the show cause notice had not been

considered at all by the respondent while passing the order impugned.

According to him, this will amount to non application of mind.

7. I have perused the order impugned before this Court. As rightly

pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent the

petitioner's reply had been considered by the respondent before passing the

order impugned. In fact, the respondent had also relied upon the judgments to

dispel the reply of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, I am not able to

appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

respondent had not considered the reply made by the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. In view of the above said findings, I am not inclined to entertain the

Writ Petition as the petitioner has got effective alternate remedy by filing an

appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as indicated in the impugned order.

9. In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner

to file an appeal as against the order impugned herein. If the petitioner proposes

to file an appeal, he shall file an appeal on or before 13.12.2024. No extension

of time shall be granted as the statutory time period including the delay as

provided under the Act would expire on 13.12.2024. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

04.11.2024

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

Note: Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the petitioner after retaining a copy of the same and after getting necessary acknowledgment from the learned counsel for the petitioner.

To: