Alternative statutory remedy bars parallel writ relief when the appellate remedy has already been invoked and is still pending.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already invoked and was actively pursuing the statutory appeal under the Sea Customs Act against the confiscation order. The Court distinguished the general rule that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar from the narrower situation where a litigant seeks parallel writ relief while a chosen appellate remedy remains pending. As Article 226 relief is discretionary, the petitioner could not switch to writ jurisdiction without any special facts justifying intervention. The writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when the petitioner had already filed an appeal under the Sea Customs Act and was actively pursuing that alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petition concerned a customs confiscation order passed under the Sea Customs Act and the petitioner had already preferred an appeal against that order, which remained pending. The Court distinguished between the general rule that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to certiorari, and the narrower situation where the party has already availed itself of the statutory appellate remedy and is simultaneously seeking writ relief. Relying on binding authority, the Court held that Article 226 relief is discretionary and that a litigant who has chosen and is pursuing the statutory appeal cannot, while that appeal is still pending, switch to writ jurisdiction to obtain parallel adjudication. No special facts were shown to justify entertaining the writ despite the pending appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed because the petitioner was pursuing an alternative statutory appeal under the Sea Customs Act.

---