$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010471142026 + W.P.(C) 14471/2026, CM APPL. 67885/2026, CM APPL. 67886/2026 PRAVEEN MANGUKIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Batra, Mr. Vedant Pathak, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Avijit Dikshit, SC with Ms.Monika Verama, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order-in-original dated 30.03.2026 (for short ‘impugned order’) read with corrigendum dated 30.04.2026 passed by respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner of Customs. 2. The short issue involved in the present petition is that the impugned order has been passed by an authority who had not granted the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. 3. The brief facts are that a proprietorship firm namely Disha Enterprises, a concern of Prem Raj Ranwa filed shipping bills for export of goods declared as ‘Plastic Hot Fix’. Later, it was suspected that the shipping bills were at the behest of three other entities out of which one was the firm in which the petitioner is a partner. During examination on 06.12.2021, a suspicious packet was found concealed deep inside and after examination it was found to be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2026 at 13:44:20 containing diamonds. The investigation was initiated and statements of various persons including the petitioner were recorded. 3.1 On 10.06.2022, an order was passed by the respondents extending the time for issuance of Show Cause Notice (for short ‘SCN’). On completion of investigation, SCN was issued on 12.12.2022 to various persons including the petitioner. On 06.01.2023 preliminary reply and objections were filed by the petitioner. On 04.09.2023 personal hearing was attended by the counsel of the petitioner and a request was made for cross-examination and in case of denial, opportunity be granted for making final submissions. Thereafter, no initiation of the personal hearing was granted and the impugned order was passed by a different officer from the officer who had given the opportunity of ‘personal hearing’. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of audi alteram partem is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The contention is that the petitioner has also filed written submissions. 6. The principle of non-interference in a writ petition on account of availability of an alternative remedy is a self-imposed restriction and is not absolute. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1 held that exceptions are carved out including the violation of the principles of natural justice thus, existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for interference in writ jurisdiction. The relevant para is reproduced below: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2026 at 13:44:20 "15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field." 6.1 In M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer- cum-Assessing Authority & Ors. (2025) 11 SCC 808 held as under: “6. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to Article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs. While it is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy under the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its dismissal. It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2026 at 13:44:20 effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not maintainable" 7. It is an admitted case that the officer who had afforded the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner had not finally decided the matter and the impugned order was passed by another officer. The principles of natural justice are the foundations of public policy of India and cannot be treated as a mere formality. The opportunity of hearing is granted to ensure that nobody is condemned unheard. A person ‘A’ hearing the affected party for the defence set up against the SCN becomes redundant in the eventuality of the order being passed by another officer. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner filed written submissions is noted to be rejected. Written submissions cannot be a substitute for an opportunity of personal hearing unless the affected party so opts for. 9. The impugned order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice falls within the exceptions carved out for interference in a writ petition despite there being a statutory remedy of appeal. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 to decide afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 11. In order to avoid any further delay and complication, let the petitioner This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2026 at 13:44:20 or the authorised representative appear before respondent no.2 on 20.10.2026 at 11.00AM. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J SHAIL JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2026 at 13:44:20 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2026 at 13:44:20