Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference where the Rajasthan Excise Act provides an appellate and revisional mechanism.

A writ petition challenging an excise order was held not to be entertainable where the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 provided an efficacious statutory appellate and revisional remedy under Section 9A. The High Court noted that, under Article 226, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised when an alternative remedy is available, except in exceptional cases. As the petitioner could approach the competent appellate authority and seek redress on the merits, the court declined to invoke writ jurisdiction and left the statutory remedy intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the excise order was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and a specific appellate and revisional mechanism was available under Section 9A of that Act. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ordinarily does not interfere where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, save in exceptional cases. As the petitioner could approach the competent appellate authority and seek redressal on merits, the writ jurisdiction was not required to be exercised.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

---