Writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedy where an order ignored appellate relief, Tribunal stay, and relevant record.

Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an appellate remedy where the impugned order reflected error apparent on the face of the record and total non-application of mind. The High Court noted that the order had been passed on irrelevant considerations and without due regard to the Commissioner (Appeals)' order, the Tribunal's stay, and the pending departmental appeal. On that basis, the writ petition was maintainable and the impugned order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, and whether the impugned order could be sustained when it was passed ignoring the effect of the appellate order and the stay granted by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The impugned order was found to have been passed on the basis of irrelevant considerations and without due regard to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the stay granted by the Tribunal. The existence of an alternative remedy did not preclude writ jurisdiction where the order under challenge suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record and from total non-application of mind. The order also failed to properly account for the petitioner's prior favourable appellate order and the pendency of the departmental appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the impugned order could not be sustained.

---