Statutory appellate remedy and disputed facts bar writ intervention, with jurisdiction and natural justice objections rejected.

Where proceedings initiated under the repealed foreign exchange law are saved and treated as falling under the later foreign exchange statute, the statutory appellate remedy under that later regime remains available. The Madras HC noted that a writ challenge involving disputed documents and factual controversies should ordinarily not bypass the appellate tribunal, and held that the petitioners should pursue that alternative remedy. It also recorded that the Special Director acted within jurisdiction under the repealed law and that adequate opportunity had been given, so no jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice was shown. The Court therefore relegated the petitioners to the appellate forum while preserving interim protection and limitation consequences.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy under the later enactment and the need to examine disputed questions of fact; (ii) whether the Special Director of Enforcement lacked jurisdiction to pass the adjudication order and whether there was violation of natural justice; and (iii) whether the petitioners should be relegated to the appellate tribunal with protection of limitation and interim relief.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy under the later enactment and the need to examine disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The proceedings were initiated under the repealed foreign exchange law, but by virtue of the saving and deeming provisions in the later foreign exchange statute, the adjudication order had to be treated as one passed under the later regime, making the appellate remedies under that regime applicable. The Court also found that deciding the challenge would require examination of documents and disputed facts, which is ordinarily better suited for the appellate tribunal rather than direct invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy therefore weighed against entertaining the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable as a direct challenge and the petitioners had to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): whether the Special Director of Enforcement lacked jurisdiction to pass the adjudication order and whether there was violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority acted within the power conferred under the repealed foreign exchange law, and there was no requirement for any further empowerment by the Central Government in the facts of the case. The record also showed that sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the parties before the impugned order was passed. On that basis, the Court found no jurisdictional defect and no violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The challenge on jurisdiction and natural justice failed.

Issue (iii): whether the petitioners should be relegated to the appellate tribunal with protection of limitation and interim relief.

Analysis: Since the matter involved factual disputes and the statute provided a complete appellate structure, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the appellate tribunal. It preserved the interim protection till filing of the appeal, permitted the petitioners to raise all grounds before the tribunal, and directed that the time spent in the writ proceedings be given credit under the Limitation Act if the appeal was filed within the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to the appellate tribunal with consequential protection regarding limitation and interim relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to undertake merits-based adjudication and left the petitioners to work out their remedies before the statutory appellate forum, while preserving limited procedural protection to ensure that the appellate remedy remained effective.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate mechanism and the dispute turns on contested facts, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass the statutory forum, particularly when the impugned action is within jurisdiction and no breach of natural justice is shown.

---