V. Savarimuthu vs Special Director of Enforcement and Others

The matter comes up for orders regarding maintainability. Against the order impugned in this revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the

petitioner has the remedy of and ought to have resorted to a regular appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board under S. 52,

Foreign Exchange Re -gulation Act (46 of 1973), hereinafter referred to as the Act. He has not done so. On the ground that the impugned or4er

ignores the policy of the Government and certain instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the petitioner wants to invoke the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

The power under Art. 227 is an extraordinary power, and it requires to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution. It is a power of

superintendence reserved for this Court and is subject to its discretion and it cannot be claimed as of right by any party. .By now, it has been

settled by pronouncement of the highest Court in the land as to when this Court could properly resort to and exercise the powers under Art. 227.

The well accepted contingencies and features to warrant the exercise of such powers are;

(i) lack of jurisdiction, erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or excess or jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction; (ii) Grave dereliction of duty

or flagrant violation of law or error of law apparent on the fact of the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or an erroneous decision

of law; (iii) violation of the principles of natural justice; (iv) perverse finding founded on no material whatsoever; and (v) arbitrary or. capricious

exercise of authority or discretion.

I am not able to spell out that this is a case where one or more of the above contingencies exist. In a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court

in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, , adverting to the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Art-227 of the Constitution, it

has been observed as follows -

A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract. the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 227. The supervisory

jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 22 of the Constitution is limited ''to seeing that an inferior court or Tribunal functions with in

the limits of its authority,''.............

Furthermore, I do not get any convincing explanation set out any where in the paper s filed in this case as to why the petitioner could not resort to

the appellate process. This court so belatedly under Art. 227, assuming there is a case for exercise of such power. The petitioner did have an

adequate alternative remedy of a statutory appeal and this remedy is more comprehensive than the one under Art. 227. If he did not avail of the

same, he cannot so naively, in the absence of extraordinary and special circumstances, seek the process under Art. 227. The petitioner has to

blame himself for the position in which he is placed and the situation which he is now facing. I must also take note of the fact that as against the

decision of the Appellate Board under S. 52 of the Act, there is a further remedy under S. 54 of the Act.

In -the said circumstances, the revision cannot be maintained and accordingly the same is rejected.

Petition dismissed.