Article 226 writ relief refused where an effective appellate remedy before the Tribunal remained available

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the petitioner had an available appellate remedy before the Tribunal against the impugned order. The Court observed that interim protection could be sought from the Tribunal, or the pending appeal could be pressed for early disposal. It therefore declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy, while directing that a request for expeditious disposal or interim relief could be made before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner had an available remedy before the Tribunal in appeal.

Analysis: The petition arose from an appellate order. The Court held that, in the circumstances, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked to examine the impugned order. It observed that the petitioner could seek interim protection before the Tribunal or request early disposal of the pending appeal. The Court also directed the Tribunal to consider expeditious disposal or interim relief and granted time to make such request.

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

---