TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 to March, 1959. The petitioner was thereby authorised to import spares, components and parts of jute mill machinery falling under Sl. No. 37 (2) but excluding components for machinery included in Appendix XXXV of the said schedule, and Sl. 68 in part V. In September. 1960 the petitioner imported certain Cork Covers for jute mill machinery ex. S. S. Alwaki, from Germany. According to the petitioner, the goods imported were covered by the licences, as they were intended for Roll Former Machines, used in Jute Mills, and as such came under the heading of component parts of jute mill machinery. The Roll Former Machines were not excluded by the Schedules, not coming within any item mentioned in Appendix XXXV of the said Schedule or Sl. No, 68 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, but that appeal is still pending. Nevertheless, this application has been made for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the said order and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the same. As appears from the affidavit in opposition affirmed by Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, on the 8th March, 1961 these cork covers were imported, as being required to be used in machines called Roll Formers. It is further stated that they were imported so that with slight modifications they could be used as roller covers for push bar drawing frames and spiral roving frames, being Jute Mill Machineries banned under Appendix XXXV and were being actually used as such. It is alleged that if this ki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been barred by limitation by the time this application came to be heard and disposed of, In my opinion, none of these grounds are adequate, and the preliminary objection should be made between two propositions. Normally, an application for a writ in the nature of mandamus will not lie if there is an alternative remedy which grants adequate relief. In the case of a writ of certiorari or prohibition, the existence of an alternative remedy is by itself no bar to an application in this jurisdiction, provided certain factors exist e.g. an initial lack of jurisdiction, violation of the rules of natural justice, etc. But the Court is not bound to entertain such an application. In neither case is the Court's jurisdiction to entertain, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been held that a litigant who has lost his right of appeal or has failed to perfect an appeal by no fault of his own may in a proper case obtain a review by certiorari. .. .... Where the error, irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or tribunal of first instance is so patent and loudly obtrusive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision. If an inferior Court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accepted rules of procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a Supreme Court decision K. S. Rashid and Sons v. Income-tax Investigation Commission. In this case Mahajan C. J. said as follows: We think that it is not necessary for us to express any final opinion in this case as to whether Section 8(5) of the Act is to be regarded as providing the only remedy available to the aggrieved party and that it excludes altogether the remedy provided for under Article 226 of the Constitution. For purposes of this case it is enough to state that the remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved- party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. So f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yet been decided. 1 am clearly of opinion that having preferred an appeal from the impugned orders under Section 188, Sea Customs Act, the appellants could not be allowed to move this Court under Article 226 and that at a time when their appeal was still pending and undecided. The present application was not, therefore, mainatainable. 5. This Appeal Court judgment is fully binding on me. Mr. Ginwalla appearing on behalf of the petitioner has cited a number or cases to the effect that the bar against coming to this Court, where there is an alternative, remedy, is not an absolute bar. He has cited the case of -- AIR 1958 SC 86 (Supra). He has also cited a decision, of Bose J. (as he then was Bharat Board Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
