Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedies under the NGT Act remain limited to exceptional cases of jurisdictional error.

Alternative statutory remedy does not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction, but departure is justified only in exceptional cases such as patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or inefficacious remedy. The Rajasthan HC noted that the Tribunal had original jurisdiction under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act over substantial environmental questions, and the limitation objection did not make its interim directions patently without jurisdiction because the Tribunal could consider condonation after hearing the parties. The statutory appellate remedy under Section 22 to the Supreme Court was also not shown to be ineffective, and the scheme required application of the sustainable development, precautionary principle, and polluter pays principle.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appeal under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and whether the Tribunal's interim directions warranted interference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or non-decision of limitation.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction, but departure from that rule is warranted only in exceptional cases such as patent lack or excess of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or where the remedy is shown to be inefficacious. The Tribunal had original jurisdiction under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 over substantial questions relating to environment, and the grievance before it fell within that jurisdiction. The pending objection of limitation did not make the Tribunal patently without jurisdiction, particularly when the Tribunal could consider condonation and had proceeded after hearing the parties. The appellate remedy to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was not shown to be ineffective, and the statutory scheme required application of sustainable development, precautionary principle, and polluter pays principle.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, and the Tribunal's orders were not interfered with.

---