Writ petition challenging jurisdiction despite statutory appeal remedy; dismissal for "appealable order" set aside, petition restored for joint hearing

The dominant issue was whether a writ petition could be dismissed for availability of a statutory appellate remedy when a jurisdictional challenge was raised. The HC held that, since the Single Bench had already recorded reasons to entertain a connected writ to decide the jurisdictional issue and had admitted it, the present writ also required adjudication on the same footing; accordingly, dismissal on the "appealable order" ground was unsustainable, and the writ was restored to be heard with the connected writ. On interim protection, the HC found no scope to grant relief because an adjudication order had meanwhile been passed and the statutory appeal was dismissed as time-barred, with that dismissal under challenge in a pending writ. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Intra-court appeal challenged dismissal of a writ petition on the ground that the impugned order was "an appealable order" and the petitioners should not "bypass the appellate remedy." The appellants pointed to a pending writ petition raising an identical issue-jurisdiction of the Bureau of Investigation-in which the court had admitted the matter to decide the jurisdictional question and granted interim protection. Observing that the other matter had been admitted because "a jurisdictional point has to be considered," the court held the present writ petition should likewise be restored and heard together with the related writs. The court declined interim relief in the appeal because, during its pendency, an adjudication order had been passed; a statutory appeal (after 10% pre-deposit) was dismissed on limitation, and that dismissal is already under challenge in the pending writ. The order under appeal was set aside; the writ petition was restored and tagged with the other pending writ petitions so that, if the limitation dismissal is found untenable, the appellate authority may be directed to decide the statutory appeal on merits. The court clarified it had not examined merits and "all points are left open."

---