Alternate statutory remedy bars writ relief where stamp duty valuation disputes should be pursued before the competent authority.

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging a deficit stamp duty demand and consequential attachment was declined because an efficacious statutory remedy was available. The Court applied the settled principle that the existence of an alternate remedy ordinarily justifies refusal to entertain writ jurisdiction, and prior admission or interim proceedings did not prevent dismissal on that ground. It held that disputes under the stamp valuation and inquiry scheme should be pursued before the competent statutory authority, not through writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternate statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petition challenged the deficit stamp duty demand and the consequential attachment, but the Court found that a statutory remedy was available to the petitioner. It noted the settled principle that availability of an alternate remedy can justify refusal to entertain a writ petition, and that the existence of prior admission or interim proceedings does not bar dismissal on that ground. The Court also referred to the statutory scheme governing valuation and inquiry under the stamp law, but held that the dispute was better addressed before the competent authority under that scheme.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the challenge was held to be unsuitable for exercise of writ jurisdiction because of the alternate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue the available statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, the High Court may refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 226, and the matter should ordinarily be pursued before the competent statutory authority.

---