Statutory alternative remedy and overlapping exemption benefits bar writ relief and deny further notification-based exemption.

Writ relief was refused because an efficacious statutory alternative remedy was available against the Tribunal's order, and the High Court was justified in declining interference until that remedy was pursued. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 71/78 was also denied because the appellant had already availed exemption or concession under Notifications Nos. 101/71 and 153/71, and the exemption scheme did not permit further benefit on that basis. The judgment thus confirms both the restraint on writ jurisdiction where a statutory remedy exists and the denial of overlapping exemption benefits under the applicable notification structure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was rightly dismissed on the ground that the appellant had an efficacious statutory alternative remedy; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 71/78 despite having availed exemption under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was rightly dismissed on the ground that the appellant had an efficacious statutory alternative remedy.

Analysis: The challenge to the Tribunal's order was not pursued by availing the statutory remedy available against it. In such circumstances, the High Court declined writ intervention and directed the appellant to pursue the alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of a statutory alternative remedy was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 71/78 despite having availed exemption under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the appellant had already enjoyed exemption or concession under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71, and on that basis held that the benefit of Notification No. 71/78 was not available. The Court found that conclusion correct and saw no reason to interfere.

Conclusion: The claim to exemption under Notification No. 71/78 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirmed the refusal to entertain writ jurisdiction in view of the available statutory remedy and sustained the denial of the claimed exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ relief will ordinarily not be granted where an efficacious statutory alternative remedy is available, and an exemption under one notification may be denied where the applicable scheme disqualifies a claimant who has already availed related exemption or concession benefits.

---