Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief, while bona fide writ prosecution can justify condonation of appeal delay.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against a penalty order under Rule 26, Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised because the appellate authority can examine the challenge. The petition was therefore not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal. However, the time spent in bona fide writ proceedings, pursued under the belief that the order was without jurisdiction, was treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. The delay was condoned subject to timely filing of the appeal and compliance with the appellate requirements, including pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious statutory appeal was available against the order imposing penalty under Rule 26; (ii) Whether the delay in preferring the statutory appeal deserved condonation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious statutory appeal was available against the order imposing penalty under Rule 26.

Analysis: The impugned order was appealable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the challenge raised questions that could appropriately be examined by the appellate authority, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not invoked. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy weighed against entertaining the petition.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in preferring the statutory appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The petitioner had approached the Court promptly and had prosecuted the writ proceedings bona fide on the belief that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the time spent before the Court was treated as sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, provided the appeal was filed within the stipulated time and the other statutory requirements, including pre-deposit, were satisfied.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to compliance with the appellate requirements.

Final Conclusion: The petition was declined on maintainability grounds, but the petitioner was permitted to pursue the statutory appeal with the benefit of condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised, and bona fide prosecution of the writ can justify condonation of delay in filing the statutory appeal.

---