Alternative statutory remedy barred writ interference where hearing requirements under BIFR regulations were not shown to be breached.

A writ challenge to a BIFR order was found inappropriate where section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 provided an adequate statutory appeal. The Court also noted that the record showed hearings had been held and the unions had made submissions, while the materials did not establish any specific request for a further hearing under Regulation 20(6) of the BIFR Regulations, 1987. In the absence of a flagrant violation of law or natural justice, writ interference was declined and the impugned order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and whether the impugned order could be interfered with on the alleged denial of hearing under Regulation 20(6) of the BIFR Regulations, 1987.

Analysis: The petitioners challenged the Board's order mainly on the ground that no further hearing was afforded after the earlier proceedings and that this offended Regulation 20(6) and the principles of natural justice. The Court noted, however, that the record showed hearings had been held, the unions had made submissions, and the materials did not establish that any further hearing had been specifically sought in terms of Regulation 20(6). The Court treated its finding on the alleged denial of hearing as tentative and confined to deciding whether writ intervention was warranted, particularly since section 25 provided an adequate appellate remedy. In the absence of a flagrant violation of law or natural justice, the Court declined to invoke writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the adequate alternative remedy, and no interference with the impugned order was warranted.

---