Alternative remedy and disputed facts bar writ jurisdiction, while the statutory appeal remains protected from limitation.

Writ jurisdiction was declined because the challenge turned on disputed facts, including whether the supplier was a bogus concern, and did not disclose any jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice. The Court held that the existence of an effective alternative remedy barred invocation of extraordinary writ powers, so the petition was dismissed. It also protected the petitioner's statutory remedy by directing that, if the appeal is filed within three months, the Appellate Authority must decide it on merits without raising limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an alternative remedy on the basis that the dispute involved jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice; (ii) Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the appellate remedy with protection against limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an alternative remedy on the basis that the dispute involved jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on the plea that the recovery proceedings should first have been taken against the supplier and not the buyer. The Court found that the impugned action rested on a factual controversy, including the allegation that the supplier was a bogus or fake concern. It held that the case did not involve any jurisdictional issue or violation of natural justice and was distinguishable from cases where writ jurisdiction had been entertained on a different factual basis.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the appellate remedy with protection against limitation.

Analysis: The petition had been filed before the expiry of limitation, and the Court considered it appropriate to protect the petitioner while directing recourse to the appellate forum.

Conclusion: If the appeal is filed within three months, the Appellate Authority is to decide it on merits without going into limitation.

Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction because the matter turned on disputed facts, but preserved the petitioner's right to file the statutory appeal within the stated period with limitation kept out of consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy is essentially factual and does not disclose a jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked when an effective alternative remedy is available.

---