IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1661 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- RADHESHYAM VERMA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA (NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 1661 of 1986 MR SH SANJANWALA for Petitioner No. 1-5 MR HM BHAGAT for Respondent No. 1-2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 15/01/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI) 1. The petition is directed against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, made on 6.9.1985, by which eleven bars of silver were confiscated to the Government under Section 113(c)/113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the motor vehicles were confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Act, besides imposing penalties under Section 114 of the Act. 2. It appears that, against the impugned order, the petitioners have already preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, under Section 129(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. A copy of that appeal memo is shown to us. The appeal seems to have been preferred on 4.1.1986, as per the appeal memo shown to us, while the present petition was filed on 27.11.1985, i.e. before presenting the said appeal. The petitioners have already availed of the alternative and efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under the provisions of the said Act for challenging the impugned order. We, therefore, reject this petition on the ground that the petitioners have already availed of the alternative and efficacious remedy available to them. Rule is, therefore, discharged with no order as to costs. [ R.K. ABICHANDANI, J. ] [ A. L. DAVE, J. ] gt