Writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory appeal where disputed facts and natural justice issues need Tribunal scrutiny.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a substitute for the statutory appellate mechanism where disputed facts, jurisdictional objections, and alleged procedural violations require examination of the original records. The proper forum for such issues is the appellate authority or Tribunal, and direct writ intervention is reserved for exceptional cases involving clear lack of authority or a plain breach of natural justice. Pendency of the writ petitions did not justify bypassing the prescribed remedy, and the petitioner was relegated to the jurisdictional Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the appellate and enhancement orders were maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal, and whether the alleged violation of natural justice warranted direct writ intervention.

Analysis: The statutory appellate forum was held to be the proper body to examine disputed facts, jurisdictional objections, and alleged procedural violations. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be used as a substitute for the appellate mechanism, particularly where the controversy turns on factual adjudication and original records. It was observed that, while a writ may lie in exceptional cases of clear lack of authority or direct breach of natural justice, such questions here required adjudication by the Tribunal. Pendency of the writ petitions was not treated as a reason to bypass the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy before the jurisdictional Tribunal.

---