Alternative remedy doctrine limits writ jurisdiction where factual adjudication is needed under mandi law.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is ordinarily not invoked when an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy is available. The rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of policy and self-imposed restraint, though it yields in recognised cases such as breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, ultra vires action, or abuse of process. Where the dispute turns on factual adjudication, including liability to market fee under the relevant mandi law and rules, the matter should be left to the statutory forum. The writ remedy was therefore declined, and the party was directed to pursue the competent authority, with interim protection against coercive recovery until adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy, and whether the appellant could be relegated to the statutory authority for factual adjudication.

Analysis: The power under Article 226 is wide but discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised where an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy exists. The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience, and self-imposed restraint, subject to recognised exceptions such as violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, ultra vires proceedings, or abuse of process. On the facts, the dispute required factual determination as to the appellant's liability to market fee under the relevant mandi law and rules, so the High Court was justified in directing resort to the statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ remedy was rightly declined and the appellant was correctly directed to pursue the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the maintainability point and the matter was left to be adjudicated by the competent statutory authority, with interim protection against coercive recovery until such adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where effective factual adjudication is required, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked in the presence of an adequate statutory remedy, unless a recognised exception to the doctrine of alternative remedy is established.

---