Alternate remedy rule bars writ interference when an effective statutory appeal exists under the co-operative scheme.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised. The text applies the alternate-remedy rule to a challenge against an order of the Deputy Registrar of a co-operative society, noting that an appeal lay to the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal under the statutory scheme. As no recognised exception was pleaded, such as violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires, the statutory appellate route was treated as the proper remedy and the writ petition was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society. The Court noted that an appeal lay before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal under the statutory scheme. Applying the settled rule that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists, the Court found no pleaded exception such as violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. In those circumstances, the statutory appellate remedy was held to be the proper course.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed for availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ interference under Article 226 unless a recognised exception to the alternate-remedy rule is made out.

---