Alternate statutory remedy bars Article 226 writ where the prescribed reference procedure was not pursued in time.

Where a statute creates a specific alternate remedy, a party cannot bypass that mechanism by invoking Article 226 directly. The Bombay High Court held that the State's failure to seek reference of a question of law to the High Court under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 within the prescribed time barred recourse to writ jurisdiction. The Court treated the statutory reference procedure as the proper channel for challenge and refused to permit circumvention of the legislative scheme. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable when an alternate statutory remedy under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 had not been pursued.

Analysis: The State challenged the Tribunal's order directly in writ jurisdiction, although the statute provided a remedy of applying to the Tribunal for reference of a question of law to the High Court. That statutory remedy was not invoked within the period permitted by law. The Court held that, where the Legislature has created a specific alternate remedy and the party has failed to pursue it, writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious alternate remedy for challenging an order, a party that fails to invoke that remedy within time cannot circumvent the statutory mechanism by directly approaching the High Court under Article 226.

---