TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. [Judgment per : Markandey Katju, C.J.]. - (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice) This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 15-10-2004. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3.The writ petition had been filed before the learned single Judge against the order of the CEGAT dated 9-7-1997. 4.We are surprised that this writ petition was entertained at all. There was a clear alternative remedy against the order of the CEGAT dated 9-7-1997 by means of filing a Reference Application before the CEGAT under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and if that applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (S.C.) = AIR 1985 SC 330. 8.In Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Limited (supra) the Supreme Court observed : In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa - AIR 1983 SC 603 A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra, JJ. held that where the statute itself provided the petitioners with an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Prescribed Authority, a second appeal to the Tribunal and thereafter to have the case stated to the High Court, it was not for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ignoring as it were, the complete statutory machinery. That it has become necessary, even now, for us to repeat this admonition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10.In Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2859 and Punjab National Bank v. D.C. Krishna, 2001 (6) SCC 569 the Supreme Court held that if the statute provides for remedy of revision or appeal, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. 11.In Union of India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 the Supreme Court held that it is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution unless there are good grounds to do otherwise. 12.In A. Venkatasubbiah Naid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
