Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference where appeal and interim relief remain available against excise orders.

Where efficacious statutory appeals are available against excise and detention orders, the writ court ordinarily will not interfere. The High Court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against one adjudication order, with orders reserved, and could still pursue or file an appeal against the other within limitation. It further observed that ad interim relief could be sought before the appellate authority in either forum. In view of these alternative and effective remedies, the writ petition was held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of alternative appellate remedies against the excise orders and detention of goods.

Analysis: The petitioner had already pursued an appeal against one adjudication order, with orders reserved, and could still pursue or file an appeal against the other order within limitation. The Court found that an ad interim relief could be sought before the appellate authority in either situation. In these circumstances, the existence of efficacious alternative remedies made it inappropriate for the writ court to interfere.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available or already pending, the writ court ordinarily will not interfere and the party must seek interim or final relief before the appellate authority.

---