Alternate statutory remedy limits writ intervention even where denial of hearing is alleged.

Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised even if the petitioner alleges violation of natural justice. The Court noted that the impugned order was challenged on the ground of denial of hearing, but an appeal lay before CESTAT and a coordinate Bench had already declined similar petitions arising from the same order on the ground of alternate remedy. In these circumstances, the writ petition was not entertained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal before the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, and whether the alleged violation of natural justice justified direct writ intervention.

Analysis: The petitioner's grievance was that the impugned order had been passed without hearing and was therefore void. The Court noted, however, that an alternative appellate remedy before CESTAT was available. It also noted that a coordinate Bench had already dismissed petitions arising from the same order on the same ground of alternate remedy. In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction ordinarily will not be exercised merely because a party alleges violation of natural justice.

---