TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is apparent that present petitions are grossly delayed and have been filed to overcome the failure of not availing of the alternate remedies within the time specified - RITES is Government of India Enterprise and not a hapless individual, who can be taken advantage of; it cannot be heard to canvas that it had made payments under duress. Further, even after the cases were closed, RITES did not take immediate steps to challenge the impugned orders and had approached this Court more than a year thereafter. The impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W. P. (C) 7823/2016, W. P. (C) 7855/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - Vibhu Bakhru, J. For the Petitioner : Mr Sameer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.02.2010 once again calling upon RITES to submit the utilisation report from the relevant custom authorities within a period of 15 days, failing which the case would be adjudicated and fiscal penalty would be imposed on RITES. RITES did not respond to the said notice as well. It appears that RITES responded to the said notice on 19.08.2013; that is, after the impugned orders had been passed. 5. Since no satisfactory response was received from RITES, the DGFT, passed the impugned orders dated 05.04.2010 imposing penalty of ₹ 13,36,225/- and ₹ 14,57,700/- respectively. 6. Copies of the said impugned orders were sent to RITES as well as its Directors. 7. According to RITES, it did not receive the said impugned orders as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot certainly be permitted to urge that as a ground for the Court dealing with his petition under Art. 226 to exercise its discretion in his favour. 12. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai: AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Supreme Court has observed as under: Learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art. 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured. The Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duress as the DGFT had refused to accept the penalty under protest. This Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid contention. RITES is Government of India Enterprise and not a hapless individual, who can be taken advantage of; it cannot be heard to canvas that it had made payments under duress. Further, even after the cases were closed, RITES did not take immediate steps to challenge the impugned orders and had approached this Court more than a year thereafter. 16. In this view, this Court does not find that any interference is warranted in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Further, having failed to exercise the alternate remedy within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
