Exhaustion of statutory remedies bars Article 226 relief where appeal, revision and reference remedies remain unused.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held premature where the aggrieved party had not exhausted the statutory remedies under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The Act provided appeal, revision and a reference to the High Court on a question of law, and the petitioner had not used the reference procedure before approaching the High Court. The governing principle stated is that a person must first pursue the remedies created by the statute before seeking constitutional relief. As a result, the challenge to the reopening provision was not examined on merits and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedies provided by the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: The petitioner had a statutory right of appeal and revision under the Act, and the Act further provided for a reference to the High Court on a question of law under section 21. The petitioner had not invoked that reference procedure before approaching the High Court. The rule is that a person aggrieved by an order under a statute must exhaust the remedies given by that statute before seeking relief under Article 226. The court therefore treated the petition as premature, and did not decide the challenge to the validity of the reopening provision on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory remedies.

---