AJOY NATH RAY, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner moves against a Customs adjudication order whereby balance of duty equivalent (Rs. 3 lac. and odd), imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lac. and interest on unpaid money equivalent of duty have fallen due. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner's departmental appeal to the Tribunal was delayed by 9 months and the Tribunal opined that the excuse that only one Director had fallen ill was too hollow to merit condonation. ( 3 ) SHRI Mullick appearing for the Writ petitioner submits that the penalty imposed is too large and is an abuse of the discretion and power allowing such levy to be made reasonably and in accordance with law. ( 4 ) REGARDING the balance duty payable Shri Mullick submits that this amount is payable but the court should consider that Rs. 3 lac and odd is a small balance outstanding when the original claim was above Rs. 70 lac; according to Shri Mullick, that the writ petitioner has cleared much the larger part of the duty amount should also go in favour of the writ petitioner. ( 5 ) AS regards interest Shri Mullick points out that one block aggregating quite sum of Rs. 5 lac. (see page 82 first block last column) was claimed without jurisdiction because 24% interest could be claimed from a later date as per General Exemption No. 84b (R. K. Jain's Customs Tariff of India 1998-99, 28th Edition page 277 ). ( 6 ) SHRI Mullick submits on the basis of the Supreme Court decision given in the case of Hindustan Steel -1978 (2) E. L. T. (J159) (S. C.), and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court given in the case of G. Y. Yadav, the writ court should interfere and relieve the writ petitioner of the liability to pay penalty of the exorbitant amount of Rs. 20 lac. ( 7 ) SHRI Roy appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petitioner deserves no discretionary relief and the application should be rejected at the outset. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to him the writ petitioner allowed the departmental remedy to become barred without any just cause. An applicant who has a departmental remedy still alive, cannot ordinarily approach the writ Court. The applicant cannot be better off because he caused his departmental remedy to become extinguished by lapse of time. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to him the writ petitioner allowed the departmental remedy to become barred without any just cause. An applicant who has a departmental remedy still alive, cannot ordinarily approach the writ Court. The applicant cannot be better off because he caused his departmental remedy to become extinguished by lapse of time. ( 9 ) IN my opinion this submission of Shri Roy is well-justified. If the Court would have refused to entertain the writ immediately after the first adjudication order was made and passed, because of the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, the court must still so refuse to-day notwithstanding the bar of the departmental remedy brought about by the writ petitioners upon themselves by their own acts or negligence. ( 10 ) SHRI Roy further submits that the adjudication arose out of non-export of Silk worth Rs. 2. 37 crores which was brought into India with full exemption. The condition for exemption was export obligation. Although there is only one paragraph in the adjudication order that "it is reported" that some export has been made out of the consignment, yet no particulars therefore are available even in the writ petition. Thus the case stands at the level of complete breach of obligation. ( 11 ) EXCUSES are made in the writ petition that export could not be made because of "world recession" and labour agitation. These are very vague phrases. Hard facts about how much the Silk was sold for indigenously, when and to whom are not whispered about. ( 12 ) IT is quite clear that the writ petitioner does not wish to make full disclosure even before the writ Court. ( 13 ) IN these circumstances, even if there might be something in the interest point, it would be quite contrary to settled principles to grant any discretionary relief to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner's application does not deserve to be entertained on the basis of the sketchy and incomplete allegations. The application is rejected in limine. ( 14 ) THE allegations in the petition are not admitted and the submissions are not conceded as Shri Roy wished to have it recorded on the part of his clients.