PATNI JEWELLERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. It challenges the validity of the impugned order dated 8th February 1988, dispatched on 12th February, 1988 at Exhibit 'C', by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, cancelling the first petitioner M/s. Patni Jewellers' gold dealers licence. Now, against the impugned order appeal admittedly lies to the Tribunal i.e. CEGAT. If so, there is no good reason why the petitioners, it aggrieved, should not prefer appeal accordingly.

(2.) Mr. Diwan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted, however, that the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and the petitioners need not exhaust remedies under the Statute before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to grant stay of the impugned order. Consequently, even if appeal lies and appeal is filed, the impugned order will continue to operate adversely to the petitioners till the hearing and disposal of the appeal in question.

(3.) Now, so far as the first contention aforesaid is concerned, that by itself is no ground for entering this petition. The validity of the impugned order and all such challenges thereto which the petitioners feel impelled to raise against the same can as well be raised in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. Assuming the Tribunal's order in appeal going against the petitioners, they would then have their remedies open against the same.