Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay can bar writ relief under Article 226 when the challenge is brought belatedly.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked at the first instance, especially when the appellate forum can examine facts and law and grant full relief including affirming, annulling or remanding the matter. The text also states that an unexplained delay of about six years, coupled with failure to pursue the statutory remedy and consequent finality of the impugned orders, supports refusal of writ relief on the ground of laches. The combined principle is that availability of an alternative remedy and inordinate unexplained delay can bar exercise of writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the available statutory appellate remedies; (ii) whether the unexplained delay of about six years and the petitioners' inaction barred relief on the ground of laches.

Issue (i): whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the available statutory appellate remedies

Analysis: The impugned orders were appealable under the relevant statutory provisions. The appellate forum was competent to examine questions of fact and law and to affirm, annul, or remand the matters. In the absence of any exceptional circumstance such as a clear violation of natural justice, the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy made it inappropriate to invoke writ jurisdiction at the first instance.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether the unexplained delay of about six years and the petitioners' inaction barred relief on the ground of laches

Analysis: The writ petitions were filed after a prolonged and unexplained delay, by which time the statutory appeals had become barred by limitation and the impugned orders had attained finality. The petitioners did not furnish any sufficient explanation for the delay, and the Court treated the belated approach as lacking bona fides.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not fit for exercise of writ jurisdiction because the petitioners had an efficacious statutory remedy, failed to exhaust it, and approached the Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal lies and the challenge is brought after inordinate unexplained delay, writ relief under Article 226 may be declined on the combined grounds of alternative remedy and laches.

---