Alternative remedy rule limits writ relief, but merits observations cannot prejudice the statutory appeal process.

A writ petition may be declined where an equally efficacious alternate remedy exists, but the court should not make merits-based observations when refusing relief on that ground. Such remarks can prejudice the statutory forum and improperly influence the appeal process. Here, the appellate authority rejected the statutory appeal at the threshold because of the High Court's observations, thereby denying an effective remedy. The Supreme Court held that the merits observations were unsustainable and that the rejection order based on them could not stand. The High Court's remarks were set aside, the appellate order was quashed, and the appeal was restored for decision independently on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, while dismissing a writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative efficacious remedy, could make observations on the merits of the dispute, and whether the appellate authority's order rejecting the statutory appeal at the threshold on that basis was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Where an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may properly be declined. However, if the writ petition is dismissed on that ground, the Court should not express views on the merits of the controversy that is to be adjudicated before the alternate forum. Such observations can prejudice the statutory appeal and defeat the party's remedy. In the present matter, the appellate authority declined to entertain the appeal because of the High Court's observations, leaving the appellant without an effective statutory remedy. The remarks on merits were therefore unsustainable, and the appellate order based on those remarks could not stand.

Conclusion: The observations of the High Court on the merits were set aside, the appellate authority's rejection order was quashed, and the appeal was restored for decision on its own merits without influence from the High Court's earlier remarks.

---