U.P. State Construction And Infrastructure Development Corporation LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the impugned order dated May 10, 2018, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST and Central Excise Appeal, was appealable before the CESTAT under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court expressed surprise at the petitioners' decision to file writ petitions, thereby avoiding the statutory appellate authority. The Court considered this action to be a misuse of public money and suggested an examination by the Chief Engineer concerned into why these petitions were filed and for taking appropriate steps against the erring officers. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, especially when a clear and effective alternative remedy exists. The operative direction was that the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed by the petitioner.

Facts

The U.P. State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. filed two writ petitions before the High Court challenging an order dated May 10, 2018, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST and Central Excise Appeal. The petitions were filed by Executive Engineers representing the corporation in Orai, District Jalaun, and District Jhansi. The court noted that the impugned order was appealable before the CESTAT under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court expressed surprise at the petitioners' conduct in filing writ petitions, bypassing the statutory appellate authority, and considered it a misuse of public money. The court suggested that the Chief Engineer concerned should examine why these petitions were filed and take appropriate steps against erring officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before the High Court when a statutory appellate remedy is available before the CESTAT under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944? The petitioner argued that the writ petitions were filed to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions or their reliance on any specific provisions or precedents to justify bypassing the statutory appeal. The respondent (Union of India and others) did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment regarding the maintainability, but the court's observation implies that the statutory remedy was the appropriate course of action.