Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay can justify refusal of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Where an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy is available against an order under sales tax law, the High Court may decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. The availability of a reference remedy on questions of law weighed against writ interference, and the petition was also filed after unexplained delay and laches. In the absence of any exceptional ground justifying bypass of the statutory remedy, the challenge was not entertained and discretionary relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative efficacious statutory remedy and the unexplained delay and laches.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order under the sales tax law, while the statute itself provided a reference remedy on questions of law arising from such orders. The availability of this remedy was a relevant consideration against the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In addition, the petition was filed long after the impugned order, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The circumstances did not disclose any exceptional ground requiring interference despite the alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction and was liable to be rejected on the grounds of alternative remedy and unexplained delay and laches.

Final Conclusion: Discretionary relief under Article 226 was declined, and the challenge to the impugned order was not entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy exists and the writ petition is also affected by unexplained delay and laches, the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction.

---