Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief; High Court directs Tribunal to decide pending stay application expeditiously.

Where an effective statutory appellate remedy has already been invoked, recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not appropriate unless a violation of fundamental rights or natural justice is shown. The petitioner had filed an appeal and a stay application before the Tribunal against a prohibitory order, so the High Court declined to entertain the writ on merits. As the only grievance was non-disposal of the stay request, the Court directed the Tribunal to hear and decide that application on merits within a short time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioner having already availed the statutory appellate remedy and whether the Court should interfere to direct disposal of the pending stay application.

Analysis: The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the prohibitory order and had also sought stay there. The Court reiterated that where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available and has been invoked, recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not proper, unless a violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice is shown. Since the only grievance was that the stay application had not been decided, the Court found it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to take up and decide that application on merits within a short time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory forum with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the stay application expeditiously.

---