YOUNUS SATTAR AND Another vs THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court of East Pakistan. The petitioners had challenged several notifications issued under the Sea Customs Act, alleging they were violative of the Constitution and issued with mala fide intent to benefit a specific company. The High Court had summarily dismissed the writ petition, reasoning that the relief of tax refund could not be granted under Article 98 of the Constitution, that the petition was filed with delay, and that the allegation of mala fide involved controversial questions of fact requiring evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioners' contentions regarding the summary dismissal of the writ petition merit consideration. Specifically, the Court will examine whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition in its entirety despite the potential validity of other grounds for relief, and whether the pursuit of departmental remedies under the Sea Customs Act justifies the timing of the writ petition.
- Can a writ petition be summarily dismissed solely because the relief of refund of taxes is sought?
- Does the pursuit of departmental remedies under the Sea Customs Act constitute a valid explanation for delay in filing a writ petition?
- Is a High Court justified in summarily dismissing a writ petition when multiple grounds for challenge are raised, including allegations of mala fide?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 2, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 48, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 225, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Section 23, Sea Customs Act 1878
ORDER
1. ABDUS SATTAR, J.-The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution in the High Court of East Pakistan, calling in question a number of notifications issued under sec--tion 23 of the Sea Customs Act, on the grounds inter alia that they were violative of Articles 2, 48 and 225 of the Constitution and that they were issued to give benefit to the Batala Engineering Company. The writ petition was filed after the petitioners had failed to get relief in departmental proceedings by way of appeal and revision. The order in revision was passed on 12-1-1968 and the writ petition was filed on the 14th' of April 1968. The petitioners prayed that oh declaration that the notifications had been issued without any lawful authority the respondents should be directed to refund to the petitioners duties and taxes realised on the basis of the same.
2. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the relief of refund of taxes could not be granted under Article 98 of the Constitution and the petitioners should have moved the High Court in January 1965, when demand on the basis of the notifi--cations was made. It was also observed that the ground of mala fide involved a controversial question of fact which could not be decided without taking evidence.
3. It is contended that the learned Judges should not have summarily dismissed the writ petition even if the relief of refund of taxes already paid could not be granted under Article 98 of the Constitution. With regard to the question of mala fide, it is submitted that that was only one of the grounds taken in challeng--ing the notifications and so far as the delay is concerned it is pointed out that the petitioners first tried to get relief through departmental proceedings as provided for in the Sea Customs Act and moved the High Court soon after the revisional application was dismissed. The contentions raised merit consideration and we grant leave to consider whether the High Court was right in summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners. A Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000.