Alternative efficacious remedy bars writ scrutiny, while statutory pre-deposit hardship remains open for later consideration.

The writ petition was not examined on merits because an alternative efficacious remedy was available and no recognised exception for bypassing that remedy was shown. The Court noted the plea of financial hardship and the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% for filing the appeal, but it made no final determination on that contention in the present order. Notice was issued for final disposal, and the matter was kept open for further consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy; and whether the financial hardship and the statutory pre-deposit requirement warranted consideration at the threshold.

Analysis: The petition was not examined on merits because the alternative remedy was available and no case was shown to fall within the recognised exceptions for bypassing that remedy. The Court also noticed the plea of financial difficulty and the issue relating to the statutory requirement of payment of 7.5% of duty for filing the appeal, but made no final adjudication on the merits of that contention in the present order.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and notice was issued for final disposal, with the matter kept for further consideration.

---