# M/s Doab Exim (P) Ltd. & Anr v. The Additional Director General Foreign Trade & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1661 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-16 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-doab-exim-p-ltd-anr-v-the-additional-director-general-foreign-trade-ors-43800 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 5 All. M/s Doab Exim (P) Ltd. & Anr.Vs The Additional Director General Foreign Trade & Ors. 1661 may be hence it is not necessary to interference with the notifications. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment in Inder Parshad vs. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 239. 59. We find that in Inder Prashad (Supra) notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 proposed to acquire demise land together with building along with other lands for public purpose. The dispute related to apportionment of compensation taken before Court. The argument was that land being owned by State, there was no occasion to acquire the same and what was acquired is only the sum-total of right and interest held by lessor in perpetual lease and, therefore, appellant is entitled to total compensation determined by award. The acquisition notification was not challenged therein on the ground that it proposed to acquire 'Nazul' land only, which is already vested in State, therefore, acquisition by itself is bad. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, does not help A.D.A. for deciding issue raised by petitioner in the present petition. 60. The discussion made above leads to an inescapable conclusion that the impugned notifications dated 21.1.1986 and 23.1.1986 are bad in law, since 'Nazul' land, which is already vested in State is sought to be acquired and not the lease rights or super-structure existing thereon belongs to the occupants of land. Further dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A by involving Section 17(4) is also illegal as there existed no urgency whatsoever to justify the same. Had the only flaw would have been wrong exercise of power under Section 17(4), we could have invalidate only declaration made under Section 6 by notification dated 23.1.1986 and permit respondents to proceed from that stage but since the former ground goes to the root of the matter, we have no option but to quash both the aforesaid notifications. 61. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Notifications dated 21.01.1986 and 23.01.1986 are set aside, so far as the same pertain to petitioner's land with cost which we quantify to Rs.20,000/-. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Writ C No.- 21347 Of 2016 M/s Doab Exim (P) Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The Additional Director General Foreign Trade & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: Vikrant Rana Counsel for Respondents: 1662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A.S.G.I., J.J. Munir, S.C. Head Notes: Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992-Sections 11(2), 15 & 16-Penalty for non-fulfilment of export obligation-Appellate order-Statutory remedy of revision-Nature of power under Section 16Revision though termed review-Alternative remedy-Maintainability of writ petition-Extraordinary jurisdiction-Self-restraint by High Court-Writ petition not maintainable-Dismissal on ground of alternative remedy. Facts: The adjudicating authority passed an order dated 11.05.2011 imposing a fiscal penalty of ₹2,03,17,600/- upon the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the Act for non-fulfilment of export obligation and violation of authorization conditions. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 15, which was dismissed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade vide order dated 30.04.2015. Aggrieved, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Issue: Whether a writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of revision under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is available against the appellate order. Held: Nature of power under Section 16: The power described as "review" under Section 16 is in substance revisional in nature, enabling the Central Government or the Director General to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of orders passed by subordinate authorities. Statutory alternative remedy available: Against the appellate order passed under Section 15, the petitioners had an effective statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government/Director General. Writ jurisdiction not to be invoked: When a statutory remedy is available, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition by exercising extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstance pleaded: No case of violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice was shown to justify bypassing the statutory remedy. RESULT: The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy. 5 All. M/s Doab Exim (P) Ltd. & Anr.Vs The Additional Director General Foreign Trade & Ors. 1663 Certified copies of the impugned orders enclosed with the writ petition are directed to be returned to learned counsel for the petitioners after retaining photocopies on record. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Vikarant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.J. Munir, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Foreign Trade Development Officer and the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, dismissing the appeal thereto. 3. Sri Munir, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection that the petitioners have a alternative remedy of filing the revision against the appellate order before the Central Government. 4. The adjudicating authority under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulatin) Act, 1992 on 11.05.2011 passed an order imposing a fiscal penalty of Rs. 2,03, 17,600/- (Rupees two crore three lakh seventeen thousand and six hundred only) upon the petitioner for non-fulfilment of the export obligation and violation of the condition of the authorization in exercise of the powers under Section 11 (2) of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order under Section 15 of the Act which has also been dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2015. 5. Section 16 of the Act provides for the review of the orders passed by the subordinate authority by Central Government or the Director General. It lays down that the Central Government in case of any decision or order made by the Director General, or the Director General in the case of any decision made by any other officer subordinate to him, may on his own motion or otherwise, call for the records and examine the correctness and legality or propriety of any such decision subject to certain conditions. 6. The aforesaid power conferred upon the Central Government or the Director General is akin to the power of revision which is generally conferred upon the higher authority. 7. The aforesaid power given under Section 16 of the Act is primarily that of revision of the orders of the subordinate authorities by the Central Government or the Director General and not actually the power to review which is vested not in the higher/superior authority but upon the same authority passing the order. Therefore, the power of review mentioned in Section 16 of the Act has to be read as that of revision. 8. In view of the above, the petitioners have statutory remedy of getting the appellate order revised by the Central Government/ Director General as the case may be. Accordingly when the petitioners have a statutory remedy available to them they are not entitle to invoke the 1664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES constitutional powers and to approach this Court straight-way for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. 10. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. 11. Certified copy of the impugned orders enclosed with the writ petition are directed to be returned to Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners after retaining photocopies of the same on record. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J. Writ C No.- 22350 Of 2016 Maviya Ali & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: Narendra Kumar Pandey, Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C. Head Notes: U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916-Section 13-DD (as inserted by U.P. Act No. 9 of 2013)- Constitution of India-Articles 243-R, 243-B, 101 & 102-Disqualification-Elected Chairman/Member of Municipality subsequently elected as Member of Legislative AssemblyRequirement to exercise option-Failure to exercise option-Cessation of municipal officeCasual vacancy-Legislative competence of State-Validity of statutory disqualificationProvision not ultra vires-Writ petition challenging vires-Dismissal. Facts: Petitioner No. 1 was elected as Chairman, Municipal Board, Deoband in the year 2012. Subsequently, he was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in the by-elections held in February 2016. Upon such election, the State Government issued a notification declaring the office of Chairman vacant in view of Section 13-DD of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.