Alternative statutory remedy limits writ relief when natural justice is disputed and prejudice is not clearly shown.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the High Court may decline to entertain a writ petition on the basis of alternative remedy. A mere allegation of breach of natural justice is insufficient unless prejudice is shown, and the writ court need not decide disputed factual questions about denial of opportunity. If the statutory scheme permits appellate correction of the impugned order, including on issues that can be raised under the incorporated civil procedure provision, refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction is not perverse or contrary to law. The result is that writ relief may be refused when the appeal provides a more effective remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the existence of an efficacious statutory appellate remedy, where violation of natural justice was alleged.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy does not completely bar writ jurisdiction, but the restriction is self-imposed and the court may decline to interfere where a statutory appeal provides a more effective remedy. A mere allegation of breach of natural justice is not enough; the complaint must show prejudice, and where the alleged denial of opportunity is itself disputed and requires examination of facts, the writ court need not enter upon it. The statutory scheme also permitted appellate correction of the impugned order, including on questions that could be raised under the incorporated civil procedure provision. In these circumstances, the refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction could not be said to be perverse or contrary to law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit for entertainment on the facts of the case, and the dismissal by the single judge was sustained in favour of the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the High Court may decline writ relief on the basis of alternative remedy, particularly when the alleged breach of natural justice is disputed and prejudice is not clearly established.

---