The availability of an alternative remedy under statute negates the maintainability of a writ petition unless a significant breach of natural justice is proved.

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.465, 481 and 530 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri K.R.Sasidharan Nair, learned counsel representing Sri Kuthuru Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 7.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request, these matters were analogously heard on admission.

3. The facts are taken from W.P.No.465 of 2025. In this petition, the challenge is mounted to the appellate order dated 26.06.2024, whereby the Order-in-Original No.66 of 2019, dated

05.09.2019 was affirmed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there exists a statutory alternative remedy under the Customs Act, 1962 , to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai , [(1998) 8 SCC 1] , the Writ Petition is very much maintainable, more so, when principles of natural justice were grossly violated.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory alternative remedy. He further submits that these petitions have not been filed within the statutory time limit prescribed to approach the Tribunal and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., [(2020) 19 SCC 681], the Writ Petitions cannot be entertained.

6. Heard the parties at length.

7. This is not in dispute that the petitioner had a statutory efficacious alternative remedy to assail the appellate order dated 26.06.2024 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) submits that if the principles of natural justice are violated, the Writ Petition is maintainable.

8. In our considered opinion, there cannot be any quarrel on the question of ‘maintainability’ of the petition. The difference of ‘maintainability’ and ‘entertainability’ is considered in extenso by the Supreme Court in the case M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer – cum – Assessing Authority , [(2023) 1 SCC 443] Every petition, which is maintainable, as a compulsion, is not required to be entertained. The singular argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to entertain these petitions is that the principles of natural justice were breached and thus, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation (supra), these petitions can be entertained.

9. The judgment in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey , [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and it was held 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….”

10. In the aforesaid judgment, the previous judgment was distinguished and it was made clear that mere breach of principles of natural justice will not be sufficient to entertain a petition. Something more must be established which goes to the root of the matter or assails the question of competence of the authority itself. The petitioner has raised no argument abo