Complete statutory appellate hierarchy bars writ relief where effective remedies exist under the Act.

Where a statute provides a complete appellate hierarchy, writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 will ordinarily not be exercised if an effective statutory remedy exists, absent breach of natural justice, want of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights. The Delhi HC held that the petition was not maintainable because the Act provided appeals from the Recovery Officer to the Tribunal and then to the Appellate Tribunal. Reading sections 30 and 20 together, the Court treated the amended scheme as creating a two-tier appellate structure and gave effect to the plain statutory language. The dispute was therefore left to be pursued through the statutory appeal process.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition should be entertained when an alternative appellate remedy was available under the Act; (ii) whether, on the amended scheme of the Act, an appeal lay from the order of the Recovery Officer to the Tribunal and thereafter to the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition should be entertained when an alternative appellate remedy was available under the Act.

Analysis: The Act provided a complete appellate hierarchy. An order of the Recovery Officer was appealable to the Tribunal under section 30, and an order of the Tribunal was appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under section 20. The settled rule is that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and ordinarily not exercised where an effective statutory remedy exists, unless there is breach of natural justice, want of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights. None of those exceptional grounds was shown.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the face of the alternative remedy, and interference under Articles 226 and 227 was declined.

Issue (ii): whether, on the amended scheme of the Act, an appeal lay from the order of the Recovery Officer to the Tribunal and thereafter to the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: Sections 30 and 20 were read together as creating a two-tier appellate structure. The omission in the amended section 30 of the earlier express words providing a further appeal did not destroy the remedy; rather, the amendment introduced an initial appeal to the Tribunal against the Recovery Officer's order, with a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the Tribunal's appellate order. The statutory language was treated as clear and unambiguous.

Conclusion: A statutory appeal lay to the Tribunal against the Recovery Officer's order, and a further appeal lay to the Appellate Tribunal against the Tribunal's order.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction because the petitioners had an adequate statutory appellate remedy, and the dispute was left to be pursued before the Appellate Tribunal within the time granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a complete hierarchy of appeals, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised, and the existence of an express appellate structure must be given effect according to the plain statutory language.

---