Alternative statutory remedies bar writ intervention when appeal and recall procedures remain available to the petitioner.

Writ jurisdiction was declined because an effective statutory appeal and a recall application before the appellate authority were available. The Court treated the power to recall an order for sufficient cause, including inability to appear for reasons beyond control, as ancillary to the authority's functions, but noted that no such application had been made. In these circumstances, the writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was left to pursue the available appellate and recall remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had alternative remedies before the appellate authority and by way of statutory appeal.

Analysis: The petitioner had two available courses: to seek recall of the appellate order before the appellate authority on the ground of inability to appear for reasons beyond control, and to pursue the statutory appeal remedy. The Court treated the power to recall an order for sufficient cause as ancillary and incidental to the authority's functions and noted that such an application had not been made. In view of the availability of these remedies, the Court found no reason to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The decision leaves the petitioner to pursue the available appellate and recall remedies, and the writ petition stands rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory remedy and an appropriate recall application are available, writ jurisdiction need not be exercised.

---