Alternative remedy and natural justice in writ jurisdiction: intra-court appeal failed, with appellate forum left to decide disputed facts.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is not excluded by an alternative statutory remedy, but courts apply a self-imposed restraint and ordinarily decline writ relief where an efficacious appeal exists. Interference is justified only for lack of inherent jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, challenge to vires, or a clear natural justice violation on the face of the record. Where the alleged denial of natural justice turns on disputed facts, the statutory appellate forum is the proper venue. In intra-court review, interference with the single judge's discretionary refusal is unwarranted unless that discretion is shown to be illegal or perverse. The writ appeal failed, and the refusal to entertain the writ petitions was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal could succeed on the ground that the writ petitions ought to have been entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal, on the assertion that the reassessment orders were vitiated by violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred by the existence of an alternative remedy, but the rule against entertaining a writ petition in such cases is a self-imposed limitation. Interference is justified only where there is lack of inherent jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, challenge to vires, or a clear breach of natural justice apparent on the face of the record. Where the alleged denial of natural justice depends on disputed facts, such as whether materials used for issuing the show-cause notice were required to be supplied, the matter is better left to the statutory appellate forum. In an intra-court appeal, interference with the learned single judge's exercise of discretion is not warranted unless the discretion is shown to be illegal or perverse.

Conclusion: The writ appeal failed. The refusal to entertain the writ petitions on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy was upheld, and no interference was made with the reassessment orders in this proceeding.

---