Alternative statutory remedy barred writ interference with property attachment and recovery proceedings under Article 226.

Writ jurisdiction was declined where an alternative statutory remedy was available and the grievance against property attachment did not justify interference under Article 226. The Court treated the challenge as distinct from earlier directions, held that no vested right existed to insist on a private sale of the attached property, and accepted only that permission could be sought from the competent authority for sale. On that basis, interference with the recovery proceedings was found unwarranted and the appeal was not entertained on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal challenging the attachment orders and the refusal to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The dispute raised in the appeal was held to be distinct from the earlier directions passed by the Court. The appellants' grievance regarding attachment of properties and the effect of earlier orders did not justify interference in writ jurisdiction. The Court accepted that the appellants could seek permission from the appropriate authority for sale of property, but no vested right existed to insist on private sale as claimed. In the circumstances, the challenge to the recovery proceedings was found not to warrant interference.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was not entertained on merits and no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned orders, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

---