' JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---Briefly stated, the facts of the case in hand are that on 30- 7-1995 Nasir Jamal petitioner, resident of Khojaki Killa, Tehsil and District Karak was on his way to Peshawar in his Motor Car Toyota Corolla Model 1989 Registration No,DNA-1211. He was stopped by the Deputy Superintendent, Customs, Mobile Squad, Bannu (respondent No,!) at Soor Dag, Karak.
The papers of the car were checked by him and the car was impounded/seized vide recovery memo. Dated 30-7-1995. The petitioner was also served with a notice as required under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969.
2. Later the Deputy Collector Customs (I) (respondent No,2) addressed a letter to the Motor Registration Authority, D.I. Khan for the verification of the papers in respect of car in question vide his Letter No,V-CUS(A)(8)DCI/Misc/95/164, dated 9-8-1995. The Motor Registration Authority issued the requisite verification vide its Letter No,2090/MV, dated 15-8-1995. However, in the said letter the Motor Registration Authority also mentioned:- "The file of the Motor Car No,DNA-1211 is misplaced and in spite of all the best efforts, in this regard, the same could not be traced out. I have ordered an enquiry and have/appointed the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer as enquiry officer to probe into the matter and submit a report in detail for necessary action..."
3. Since the Motor Registration Authority had issued the verification letter, mentioned above, therefore, the petitioner applied to respondent No,2 for the release of the vehicle. Respondent No,2 ordered the release of the vehicle subject to the condition that the petitioner would submit a Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs,7,00,000 (Rupees seven hundred thousands). The petitioner could not manage to procure the Bank Guarantee, therefore, he submitted an application before respondent No,2 for summary adjudication of the case vide his application dated 9-8-1995. It appears that the case has not been decided so far.
4. The petitioner has, thus,, challenged the vires of the order of seizure by filing this writ petition. He has prayed that the Motor Registration Authority, D.I. Khan has properly verified the credentials of the car in question and therefore the seizure of the same and the subsequent refusal of the respondents to release/return the car to the petitioner is not in accordance with law and therefore without lawful authority. He has further prayed that the same be declared as without jurisdiction and of no legal effect and accordingly void ab initio because the petitioner had purchased the same from one Sail Bad Shah son of Hukam Shah, resident of Khojaki Totakhel, Tehsil and District Karak presently residing at Topanwala Bazaar, D.I. Khan) for a sum of Rs,4,75,000 (Rupees four lacs and seventy-five thousands only) and that in this respect a proper transfer letter has also been duly executed by respondent No,4 in favour of the petitioner.
5. On 12-9-1995 respondent No,2 was directed by this Court to furnish comments within a fortnight.
The needful was done. In his comments respondent No,2 submitted that since the car was stopped, under reasonable suspicion, to find out as to whether or not it had been lawfully imported, therefore, the petitioner was directed to produce the requisite documents to show that he was in lawful possession of the same but the petitioner failed to produce any other documents except for the registration book.
6. Consequently the Motor Registration Authority, D.I. Khan was asked to furnish the documents on the basis of which the car in question was registered. The Motor Registration. Authority, D.I. Khan informed the respondents that the entire record, in respect of the said car, was not available in their office and had been misplaced. It was thus contended that all these events led to inevitable conclusion that the car in question was not imported lawfully and that the Government dues (levy of customs duty and sales tax), in respect thereof, were evaded. It was further contended that in order to adjudicate the matter, Deputy Collector Customs (I) respondent No,2 addressed memo.
No,V-CUS(A)(8)DC-1/Misc/95/174, dated 24-8-1995 to the Director, Excise and Taxation, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar for the verification of Registration No,DNA-1211 and as a result thereof, the said Director, Excise and Taxation addressed memo. No,3451/T/XXXV-B-56, dated 12-9-1995 to the Motor Registration Authority, D.I. Khan, directing him to trace out the file in question and send all the relevant papers directly to the respondents for doing the needful, that the papers have not been received so far from the concerned quarters,therefore, the matter could not be adjudicated upon. It was further stated that the present writ petition is premature and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine.
7. We have had the advantage of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate and the learned State Counsel Mr. K.G. Saber, Advocate assisted by Mr. Muhammad Jamil, Law Officer, for respondents Nos.1 to 3, at length.
8. It may be stated at the very outset that the car in question was seized under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 (Act IV of 1969) and the matter has not been adjudicated upon by the Customs Authorities under section 179 till date. Therefore the petitioner cannot knock at the door of this Court and challenge the validity of the order of seizure in the writ petition because when the adjudication order is passed by the Customs Authorities under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 (Act IV of 1969), he has two more remedies available to him. Firstly, he can file an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) under section 193 of the Customs Act for the redress of his grievance and secondly if he does not get his grievance redressed there then in that case he has the remedy to approach the Federal Government by way of revision under section 196 of the Customs Act.
9. Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides an extraordinary remedy to the aggrieved person of invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court with the underlying purpose to keep the administrative and judicial authorities within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the law provides a remedy to another authority fully competent to give relief, any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is likely to produce a sense of distrust in those authorities and to cast undeserved reflection on their integrity and competency and would defeat the legislative (PLD 1958 Supreme Court 437, Tariq Transport Company v. Sargodha, Bhera Bus Service, Sargodha).
10. Similarly in case Ch. Abdul Qadir v. Lahore Commercial Bank Ltd. Reported as 1980 Supreme Court Monthly Review 280 it was held:-- "If a person voluntarily fails to avail himself all the remedies available to him under the civil Law, he has no locus standi to maintain writ petition in High Court."
11. There is yet another pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on this point.
In Wealth Tax Officer v. Shaukat Afzal and others (1993 Supreme Court Monthly Review page 1810) the Supreme Court did not approve the invoking of the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court by abandoning Or bypassing the statutory remedy without reasonable cause.
12. Admittedly, this writ petition has been filed without resorting to the remedies provided by the Statute, i,e,, the Customs Act, 1969 (Act IV of 1969) and therefore, we are of the view that, in the first instance, the petitioner should exhaust all the legal remedies available to him under the Customs Act and thereafter, if need be, he may approach this Court. This writ petition being premature is accordingly dismissed in limine.
13. We would, however, like to direct the concerned Customs Authorities to dispose of the adjudication proceedings expeditiously/swiftly. Similarly, the Director, Excise and Taxation, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar is directed to enquire into the matter, fix responsibility and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the defaulting officials within reasonable time. Copies of this judgment be sent to them immediately.
C.M. No,1302/95 ' Since the writ petition has been dismissed in limine, therefore, this application has now become infructuous. The earlier order passed on 12-9-1995, vide which the car in question was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner, on his furnishing security bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000, with two sureties, is hereby withdrawn/recalled.