Alternative statutory remedy limits writ jurisdiction; unexplained interim relief in anti-dumping dispute was set aside.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal exists in anti-dumping matters, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked merely because the dispute is important or sensitive; the High Court was therefore not justified in entertaining the writ petition. An interim order affecting the parties and liable to higher scrutiny must record at least brief reasons, and the unexplained grant of interim relief was unsustainable. The matter was accordingly left to the statutory appellate remedy before CESTAT, with the time spent in writ proceedings protected for limitation purposes in favour of the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition and granting interim relief despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, and whether the impugned interim order could be sustained without reasons.

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under the statutory scheme governing anti-dumping matters ordinarily weighs against exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. An interim order, particularly one capable of being challenged before a higher forum, must disclose at least brief reasons so that the basis of the discretionary relief can be examined. The High Court's sole reliance on the importance and sensitivity of the dispute was insufficient to justify bypassing the statutory remedy, and its unexplained grant of interim relief was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit to be entertained and the interim order was set aside. The parties were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy before CESTAT, with the time spent in the writ proceedings to be protected for limitation purposes in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked merely on the ground that the dispute is important or sensitive, and an interim order must contain at least brief reasons to permit effective appellate scrutiny.

---