Alternative remedy bars writ challenge to rejection of warrant conversion request under criminal procedure law.

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and is ordinarily not invoked where an equally efficacious statutory remedy is available. A challenge to rejection of an application under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning conversion of non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants, could have been pursued through the High Court's inherent and supervisory criminal jurisdiction under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code. On that basis, the writ remedy was treated as unwarranted, and the Court did not examine the merits. The writ petitions were therefore held not maintainable for availability of an alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging rejection of the application under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 482/483 of the Code.

Analysis: The extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and is ordinarily not to be invoked where an equally efficacious statutory remedy exists. The challenge was directed against an order rejecting conversion of non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants, a matter which could have been pursued by invoking the inherent and supervisory criminal jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 and Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In these circumstances, the writ remedy was held to be unwarranted, and the Court declined to enter into the merits.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and were dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

---