Parallel writ and statutory appeal not permitted when the petitioner is already pursuing the appellate remedy on the same issue.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already invoked and was actively pursuing a pending statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the same subject matter. The Court distinguished ordinary exceptions to the alternative remedy rule and held that parallel pursuit of writ and appeal would defeat the statutory appellate scheme. The alleged natural justice objection did not justify departure from that principle on the facts stated. The writ was therefore declined, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal before the excise appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while simultaneously pursuing a pending statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is ordinarily a matter of judicial discretion, but the case stood on a different footing because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory appellate mechanism and the appeal was pending. The Court distinguished cases where a writ is entertained despite an available remedy from cases where parallel proceedings are actively pursued. It held that permitting both remedies to proceed at the same time would defeat the statutory appellate scheme and that the alleged natural justice objection did not take the case out of that rule on the facts before it. The second issue was not examined on merits because the writ was found not maintainable.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the pending statutory appeal and could not be entertained alongside it.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appeal before the excise appellate authority, and the writ jurisdiction was declined to avoid parallel adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a litigant has already invoked and is actively pursuing an efficacious statutory appeal, the High Court will ordinarily refuse to entertain a parallel writ petition under Article 226 on the same subject matter.

---