1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2740 OF 2008 Ronson Industrial Engineers Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s Darshan Singh and others ...Respondents Mr Mathew Medumpara i/b Mr Vikas K. Mahangare for Petitioners. Ms S.V. Bharucha with Dr Ashok Bhatija for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. DATE : 8TH JUNE 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1. Admittedly, alternate remedy of filing appeal before the forum created by the statute is available under section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (for short, the said Act). Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that because the order suffers from non-observance of principles of natural justice and Appellate Authority is not legally trained, this Court should entertain this petition. In our opinion, the argument is not well founded. It is clear from the record that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. They were directed to file documents which will show that they have performed their export obligation. The petitioners contend that the show cause notice is incompetent but we are not shown any reply filed by the petitioners to the show cause notice raising the contention that the show cause notice is not 3 competent. Admittedly, the petitioners have not submitted any documents which they were called upon to submit. In so far as challenge to the validity of section 15 of the said Act is concerned, by that section, the appellate powers are vested in the Director General of Foreign Trade. According to the petitioners, because the Director General is not a legally trained person, vesting of appellate powers in him is not valid. The provisions similar to section 15 of the said Act are contained in several Central and State enactments and such provisions have been held to be valid. In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention that section 15 is invalid. As we find that there is a remedy available which is provided by the same statute, it will not be proper for us to entertain the petition. In our opinion, really speaking, the petitioners have misused the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. When the show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, the petitioners should have submitted their reply to the show cause notice, produced the documents. The petitioners did not do that and when 4 the adverse order was made, they did not file any appeal and approached this Court. In our opinion, the petition deserves to be summarily rejected. Perusal of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents shows that the petitioners were given an opportunity to meet the allegations against them but the petitioners did not avail of that opportunity. Petition is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.S. MOHITE )