Alternative statutory remedy limits Article 226 writ relief against excise classification orders absent exceptional circumstances.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to quash an excise classification order when the statute provides an effective appellate remedy. The High Court treated the available departmental appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as a complete machinery for redress and applied self-imposed restraint on writ intervention. It noted that delay in the appeal process, or incidental hardship, is not by itself sufficient to bypass the statutory remedy. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the writ petition was rejected and the petitioner was left to pursue the prescribed appeal route.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash an excise classification order when an appeal under the statute is available.

Analysis: The impugned classification order was appealable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the statutory appellate hierarchy provided a complete machinery for redress. The Court held that the availability of an alternative departmental remedy was a strong ground for declining to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction, especially where no exceptional circumstance justified departure from the normal rule of self-imposed restraint. The possibility that appeals may take time, or that incidental hardship may arise, was held insufficient to bypass the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the available alternative appellate remedy and was therefore rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere under Article 226 and left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy under the excise law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a special right and provides a complete appellate remedy for its enforcement, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked unless exceptional grounds are shown.

---