Telangana High Court

Mr. Vikram Kumar Kabra vs Union Of India on 3 May, 2024

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                       AND
      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

              WRIT PETITION No.13050 OF 2024

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel, representing

Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of

India, for respondent No. 1; and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned

counsel, representing Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing

Counsel for Income Tax Department, appearing for

respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The challenge mounted in this petition is to the order

dated 29.11.2023 passed by respondent No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, fairly

admitted that although this order can be called in question

before the appellate tribunal constituted under Section 129A

of Customs Act, 1962, this petition may be directly

entertained because impugned order is perverse in nature.

Petitioner is not the owner of the gold and he has been made

responsible for no fault on his part.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly

advanced the similar contention. Despite repeated query

from the Bench as to why he should not avail the statutory

remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, the singular answer

came forward was that the order impugned is perverse. No-

doubt, in certain circumstances, despite availability of

alternative remedy, a writ petition can be entertained. This is

discretion of the Court and not compulsion.

5. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks,

Mumbai 1 was subsequently considered in the case of U.P.

State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another 2 and it

was opined as under:-

"17. ...But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute...."

6. If the present case is tested on the anvil of principles

laid down in the case of R.S. Pandey (supra), it will be clear

1 (1998) 8 SCC 1

(2005) 8 SCC 264

like noon day that: - (i) petitioner has a statutory alternative

efficacious remedy; (ii) as per petitioner's stand, impugned order

is not passed by an incompetent appellate authority; and (iii)

petitioner could not point out that if he is relegated to avail the

said remedy, it will cause a palpable injury to him. Thus, we

are not inclined to entertain this petition in view of availability

of alternative remedy.

7. This petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the