Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where an effective appeal exists and pre-deposit does not justify bypassing it.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held ordinarily unavailable where the statute provides an efficacious alternative appeal under Section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The High Court reiterated that the existence of an effective statutory remedy forms part of the legislative scheme and should normally be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. The requirement of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal was not treated as a sufficient reason to bypass the appellate forum. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable despite the availability of an effective statutory appeal under Section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under Section 39 formed part of the statutory scheme and provided an effective alternative remedy. The High Court reiterated the settled principle that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised when such an efficacious remedy is available. The requirement of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal was held not to justify bypassing the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

---