The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to release customs cargo. The court held that filing a second petition to challenge a prior order constituted abuse of process and that the remedy lay in a review petition.
Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.09.2018
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P.(MD)No.19953 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17752 of 2018
Mariappan power agent of Charles Jepakumar
: Petitioner
Vs.
Cantonment,Trichy District.
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the cargo bearing bill lading No.HLCUCHI130530345 and consequently direct the respondents to release and deliver the goods to the petitioner by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 09.06.2017 within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganantham, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to release the cargo bearing bill lading No.HLCUCHI130530345 and consequently direct the respondents to release and deliver the goods to the petitioner by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 09.06.2017 within a time frame.
2
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, would submit that the petitioner did not give his consent. Since a consent order was passed, a complaint was given to the Bar Council against the Lawyer, who appeared earlier and to substantiate the same, no document is placed before this Court.
4.In the course of the argument, the petitioner would pray for withdrawal of the writ petition.
5.If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in the earlier writ petition, he had only to file a review petition, not by way of another writ petition, which is an abuse of process of the Court.
6.In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
To
+1cc to Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate Sr.No.85731
VS
VB/SKN/SAR4/02.11.2018/2P/4C
Order made in W.P.(MD)No.19953 of 2018 20.09.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second writ petition is maintainable to challenge a previous consensual order without first filing a review petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mariappan
The Chief Commissioner of Customs
The Commissioner of Customs
J.NISHA BANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
