Writ jurisdiction and alternate remedy barred belated challenge to foreign exchange adjudication proceedings after merits participation.

A belated challenge to adjudicatory competence was not entertained where the petitioner had already participated on merits in foreign exchange proceedings and had an effective statutory appeal. The Court treated the jurisdictional objection as a mixed question of law and fact that should have been raised at the earliest opportunity. It held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, and that the availability of an efficacious appellate remedy weighed against certiorari. On the facts, the petitioner had no sufficient justification to bypass the statutory forum, so the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice and adjudication orders should be entertained in the face of an alternate statutory remedy and the petitioner's belated jurisdictional objection.

Analysis: The petition sought certiorari to quash foreign exchange adjudication proceedings initiated under FERA and continued with reference to FEMA. The Court noted that the petitioner had participated in the adjudication on merits in the first round, obtained partial relief before the appellate tribunal, and only thereafter attempted to question the authority's competence. The jurisdictional plea was treated as a mixed question of law and fact, one that ought to have been raised at the earliest opportunity. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, and the existence of an efficacious appellate remedy weighed against interference. On the facts, the petitioner had not approached the Court with sufficient justification to bypass the statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the challenge to the impugned proceedings failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a petitioner has earlier submitted to adjudicatory jurisdiction and an effective statutory appeal is available, the Court will ordinarily decline certiorari in writ jurisdiction, especially when the belated challenge to competence raises a mixed question of law and fact.

---