Sunita Bissa vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Bureau Of Investigation, South Bengal Howrah Zone And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Sunita Bissa, challenged an order dated July 10, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal Howrah Zone & Ors. This order imposed a penalty for the release of goods. The petitioner contended that she is the owner of the goods, a fact disputed by the respondents. The impugned order was described as a speaking order with elaborate discussion. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge the penalty order.

Held

The Court held that it cannot act as an appellate authority in exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the impugned order was a speaking order, passed after elaborate discussion, and was based on evidence. The dispute regarding the ownership of the goods was a highly disputed question of fact, requiring adjudication by the appropriate appellate forum. The Court also found no violation of the principles of natural justice, no lack of jurisdiction, and no procedural irregularity in the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The dismissal of the writ petition was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to raise all contentions before the appellate authority if an appeal is filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can act as an appellate authority to substitute the findings of the adjudicating authority when the dispute involves questions of fact, such as the ownership of goods, which are based on material evidence? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order imposing penalty was erroneous and sought relief from the High Court. The specific arguments regarding the ownership of goods and the quantum of penalty were raised. Revenue/State's Contention: The State argued that the impugned order was a speaking order, passed after elaborate discussion, and that the dispute regarding the ownership of goods was a highly disputed question of fact. They contended that the High Court should not substitute its findings for those of the adjudicating authority and that the appropriate forum for such disputes is the appellate authority. They also argued that no principles of natural justice were violated, the order was not without jurisdiction, and no procedural irregularity was committed.