Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to excise show cause notices where the statutory process remains unexhausted.

Writ petitions challenging show cause notices under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were found not maintainable because an effective statutory remedy before the excise authority was available and had not been exhausted. Applying the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 is ordinarily not exercised when an alternative remedy exists, the HC declined to examine the notices on merits and refused to entertain the challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions challenging show cause notices issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were maintainable in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petitions invoked Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against show cause notices. The Court noted the preliminary objection that the petitioners should pursue the statutory remedy before the excise authority. Relying on prior decisions of the High Court and the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an effective alternative remedy is available and has not been availed of, the Court declined to examine the notices on merits.

Conclusion: The petitions were held not maintainable in writ jurisdiction on account of the available alternative remedy, and the challenge to the show cause notices was not entertained.

---