Statutory appellate remedy bars writ challenge to exoneration order under foreign exchange law after tribunal rejection.

The statutory appeal under the foreign exchange law was wide enough to cover an adjudication order exonerating some noticees while adverse findings were made against others, and the deposit proviso did not narrow that appellate remedy. Because the grievance had already been taken before the Appellate Tribunal and rejected, the same challenge could not be pursued again in writ jurisdiction. The High Court therefore held that the writ petition was not maintainable where an effective statutory appeal existed and had been invoked, and declined to entertain the attack on the exoneration order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the exoneration of certain noticees was maintainable in view of the availability and invocation of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether an appeal lay against an order exonerating some of the noticees under the foreign exchange law regime.

Analysis: The challenge to the exoneration was held to be appealable, since the relevant appellate provisions under the foreign exchange enactments were wide enough to cover an order made by the adjudicating authority in favour of some noticees as well as against others. The proviso relating to deposit of penalty on appeal did not restrict the scope of the main appellate provision. The petitioner's grievance had in fact been urged before the Appellate Tribunal, and the dismissal of that appeal meant the grievance stood negatived. Once the statutory appeal was available and had been pursued, the writ petition could not be maintained to assail the same order. The Court also found no basis to interfere on the plea that the petitioner could continue the writ petition despite the appellate proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the exoneration could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

---