Efficacious alternative remedy bars writ challenge to forfeiture orders, and show cause notices will not be quashed absent jurisdictional defect.

Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal, and the challenge to the forfeiture order under the NDPS Act was therefore not maintainable because the alleged insufficiency of evidence could be raised before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 68-O. The Court found no exceptional ground such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice to justify interference. A challenge to the show cause notice under Section 68-H(1) also failed because the notice was only an intermediate step in the adjudicatory process, no prima facie jurisdictional defect or abuse of process was shown, and the petition had become infructuous after the final order was passed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the forfeiture order and the consequential direction were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 68-O. (ii) Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notice were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the forfeiture order and the consequential direction were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 68-O.

Analysis: The order under challenge was passed under Chapter V-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the statute provided a specific appellate remedy against orders passed under Section 68-I. The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy ordinarily attracts self-imposed restraint in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The exceptional grounds recognized for bypassing the statutory forum, such as absence of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, were not made out. The grievance that the evidence was insufficient involved adjudication that could be raised before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 68-O.

Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the forfeiture order were not maintainable and were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notice were maintainable.

Analysis: The notice issued under Section 68-H(1) was only a step in the adjudicatory process and the petitioners had an opportunity to submit their response before the competent authority. Interference at the show cause stage is exceptional and is not warranted unless the notice is shown prima facie to be without jurisdiction or an abuse of process. No such case was established. In addition, the petitions had become infructuous because a final order had already been passed.

Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the show cause notice were not maintainable and were dismissed as infructuous.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction where a statutory appellate remedy was available and also refused interference at the show cause notice stage, resulting in dismissal of all the connected writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy, and a show cause notice will not be quashed in writ proceedings absent a clear case of want of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice.

---