Writ jurisdiction survives alternative remedy where legislative competence and jurisdictional power to levy duty are in issue.

Alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge is to jurisdiction or legislative competence and the issue can be decided as a pure question of law. The Court treated the dispute over levy of electricity duty on supply to a licensee as turning on construction of the charging and definitional provisions and on the State's power to impose the levy. Because the underlying transaction was not in dispute and no factual adjudication was required, the matter was fit for examination under Article 226. The High Court should therefore not have refused to entertain the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy or disputed facts; the writ was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy and alleged disputed questions of fact, when the challenge raised a jurisdictional issue as to the State's power to levy electricity duty on supply of electricity to a licensee.

Analysis: The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy does not, by itself, bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The recognized exceptions include cases where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, where vires is challenged, or where the controversy can be decided as a pure question of law. The controversy here turned on the construction of the charging and definitional provisions of the electricity duty legislation and on the legislative competence to levy duty on the supply of electricity to an intermediary distributor. The Court found that the nature of the transaction between the parties was not in dispute and that no factual adjudication was necessary to determine whether the levy itself could be imposed. The challenge therefore went to the root of jurisdiction and was fit for examination under Article 226.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have declined writ jurisdiction on the ground of alternative remedy or factual dispute; the writ petition was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An alternative statutory remedy does not preclude writ relief where the challenge is to jurisdiction or legislative competence and the issue can be determined as a pure question of law without resolving disputed facts.

---