Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 44‑K to 46‑K of 1986, decided on 2nd February, 1985.
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Writ petition‑‑Competency of‑‑Alternate and adequate remedy‑‑Writ petitions filed without exhausting alternate and adequate remedy available to petitioners under law, held, was not competent in circumstances‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Gohar Ali Baloch, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1986.
‑‑Petitioners in all these three cases imported certain quantities of foodstuffs and sought to clear the goods as unaccompanied luggage under the rules. Superintendent of Customs, Preventive Service, ordered release of the goods against fine of Rs.1,000 in each case but on re‑examination of the goods it was noticed that petitioner mis-declared the quantity and the value of the goods resulting in revenue loss. The Collector of Customs (Preventive), therefore, issued a show‑cause notice to the petitioners and finally held by the order dated 8‑10‑1985 that "It is an established position that the goods are in commercial quantity and have been imported without any import authorisation", and he, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under section 195 of the Customs Act, 1969, set aside the order of the Superintendent of Customs and directed confiscation of the goods under clause 9 of subsection (1) of section 156 of the Customs Act.
2. Petitioner then challenged the order of the Collector of Customs in separate constitutional petitions in Sind High Court but these were dismissed not only on the merits but also for the reason alternate and adequate remedy available under section 196 of the Customs Act was not exhausted by the petitioners.
3. After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the submissions made by Mr. Gohar Ali Baloch, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, we find that no exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the learned Judges in the High Court in dismissing the petition on the ground that petitions were not competent as alternative remedy available to the petitioners had not been availed of by them. All these petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
M. I. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer