Statutory appellate remedy under FEMA bars writ interference with refusal to waive pre-deposit in fiscal matters.

A writ petition challenging the Tribunal's refusal to waive pre-deposit was held not maintainable because FEMA provides a complete statutory mechanism, including an appellate remedy to the High Court. The Court applied the principle that in fiscal statutes, an efficacious statutory remedy ordinarily bars recourse to Article 226 writ jurisdiction. It also rejected the contention that an oral waiver order had earlier been passed, finding no basis for that plea. The challenge to the Tribunal's order therefore failed, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under FEMA and whether the Court should interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to waive pre-deposit.

Analysis: The petitioner sought to challenge the Tribunal's order refusing waiver of pre-deposit and to stop further hearing of the appeal. The Court held that the Foreign Exchange Management Act created a complete statutory mechanism, including an appellate remedy to the High Court, and that offences and pending appeals under FERA were to be dealt with under the FEMA regime. In a fiscal statute, the existence of an efficacious statutory remedy ordinarily bars recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court also found no basis to accept the plea that an oral order of waiver had been passed earlier.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---