AND WRIT PETITION No.35435 of 2025 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.Mohan Rao Ballani, the party-in person and Mr.B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1 and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks to challenge the Order- in-Original dated 28.03.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The list of dates given by the petitioner along with the writ petition itself is a self explanatory. The impugned Order-in-Original is one which was passed on 28.3.2023, which the petitioner himself accepts in the writ petition to have received on 03.05.2023. The petitioner thereafter appears to have approached the Writ Court by filing a writ petition (SR) No.29833 of 2023 was not registered, but at the SR stage itself, the same was withdrawn for the reasons best known to him. After the withdrawal of the aforesaid writ petition, he preferred a rectification petition before the authorities which have got rejected on 20.02.2024. The petitioner thereafter approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Regional bench at Hyderabad vide Appeal Diary No.307392024. The said appeal got dismissed on 27.08.2024 on the ground of default in not making the Pre-deposit of 7.5%, which is a mandatory requirement under the provisions of law. The petitioner again does not avail any legal recourse against the said rejection of appeal. After some time, he again approaches the authority by way of another rectification petition on 22.11.2024. The said rectification also stood rejected on 29.01.2025 with liberty to file newly constituted appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred WP.No.7881 of 2025 before this Court, which he withdrew on 24.04.2025. The petitioner waits for another six months and filed the present writ petition on 13.11.2025. Meanwhile, from the pleadings itself it appears that the petitioner had lodged complaints against the officers of the Department with allegations of demand of bribe and other similar allegations. The petitioner’s case also travelled to the CBI as also to the Lokpal of India and they had also conducted enquiry and found that allegations leveled by the petitioner, so far as bribe is concerned, all were found to be false and baseless and the proceedings along with complaint that the petitioner had filed before the Lokpal were closed there itself.

3. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCT v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.,, [(2020) 19 Supreme Court Cases 681], wherein, in para Nos.18 and 19, it is held as under:

“ 18. A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can take a different approach in the matter in reference to Article 226 of the Constitution. The principle underlying the rejection of such argument by this Court would apply on all fours to the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

19. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. [Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 21 : (2018) 361 ELT 22] , which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 570 : AIR 2015 Guj 97] and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE [Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 1