Statutory appellate remedy bars writ interference where an efficacious appeal is available under foreign exchange law.

An impugned penalty order under the repealed foreign exchange law was challenged in writ proceedings, but the High Court held that an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. On that basis, it declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy. The limitation objection under Section 49(3) was examined only prima facie, and no final finding was recorded on that issue. The challenge was left to be pursued before the prescribed appellate forum, without interference on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis: The impugned order imposing penalty under the repealed foreign exchange law was challenged in writ proceedings, but the Court noted that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The limitation objection under Section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was only examined prima facie, and no conclusive finding was recorded on that question.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy and the writ petition was not entertained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge was left to be pursued before the appellate forum, and the writ court declined to interfere on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction need not be exercised and the party may be relegated to the prescribed appeal.

---