Efficacious statutory remedy under FEMA bars writ intervention where appeal and interim relief remain available.

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined where proceedings under FEMA had progressed to an adjudication order during the pendency of the appeals, because an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 19(1) remained available, including scope for dispensing with pre-deposit in appropriate cases. The Court treated the existence of that remedy, together with the appellants' opportunity to seek interim relief or appear before the adjudicating authority, as sufficient reason not to entertain the challenge. It emphasised that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable, and left the statutory remedies open without examining the merits of the dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeals challenging proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 should be entertained when an adjudication order had been passed during the pendency of the appeals and a statutory appeal was available under the Act.

Analysis: The appeals arose from writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a show-cause notice and the complaint under Section 16(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. During pendency of the appeals, an adjudication order was passed and amendment applications were filed, but the Court held that the availability of an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, including the power to dispense with pre-deposit in appropriate cases, provided an efficacious statutory remedy. The Court further noted that the appellants had sufficient opportunity to seek interim relief or appear before the adjudicating authority, but did not do so, and that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable.

Conclusion: The writ appeals were not entertained and were dismissed, without any decision on the merits of the challenge, and the statutory remedies were left open.

---