Court Refuses to Intervene Under Article 226 Where Petitioner Failed to Approach Statutory Appellate Authority and Filed Petition After Prolonged Inaction
In a recent judgment dated September 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) dismissed a writ petition filed by Irfan challenging the confiscation of a 116-gram gold bar seized at Indira Gandhi International Airport in December 2020. The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking release of the gold bar and alleging procedural irregularities, including non-service of a show cause notice and denial of a hearing during the adjudication process conducted by the Customs authorities.
The Court observed that the petitioner was aware of the gold seizure since 2020 but delayed initiating any legal proceedings for nearly five years, including not availing the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudication proceedings concluded with an Order-in-Original dated June 7, 2023, ordering absolute confiscation of the gold bar and imposing penalties.
The petitioner’s primary contention rested on the claim that no show cause notice was served and that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which purportedly waived the notice and hearing requirements, was invalid. He also disputed the legality of the confiscation and penalty imposed. However, the Court held that these contentions necessitated a detailed examination of the adjudication record and materials, including the disputed statement and subsequent communications, which are more appropriately addressed through the statutory appellate mechanism rather than writ jurisdiction.
Emphasizing the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised where efficacious statutory remedies exist, the Court underscored that the petitioner’s unexplained delay and laches further weighed against entertaining the writ petition. The Court relied on precedents including the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja (2025) and relevant judgments of the Delhi High Court, which affirm that High Courts should refrain from interfering in concluded adjudication proceedings when alternative remedies are available.
The Court thus declined to entertain the writ petition, dismissing it with liberty to approach the statutory appellate authority if so advised. It clarified that the dismissal was without prejudice to the merits of the petitioner’s challenge and without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the Order-in-Original or the validity of the statement recorded during the investigation.
This ruling reiterates the judiciary’s consistent stance on the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking writ relief and highlights the importance of timely legal action, especially in matters involving Customs and excise adjudications.
Bottom Line:
Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted when a statutory appellate remedy is available under the Customs Act, 1962, and the petitioner has approached the court after unexplained delay and laches.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Customs Act, 1962 Sections 110(2), 111, 112(a), 112(b), 114AA, 124, 128
Irfan v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971841
