Alternative remedy bars writ jurisdiction where a statutory customs appeal is available despite natural justice objections.

A writ petition challenging customs proceedings was rejected because a statutory appellate remedy under Section 129-A of the Customs Act was available. The High Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, and it held that the petitioner's reliance on alleged natural justice violations and the pre-deposit requirement did not justify bypassing the appeal. The availability of the appellate mechanism therefore weighed against entertaining the writ petition, and the petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The petition was founded on alleged violation of natural justice and asserted that the appellate remedy was not efficacious because of the pre-deposit requirement. The Court noted the settled principle that where a statutory appeal is provided, that remedy should ordinarily be availed, and held that the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy weighed against entertaining the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the ground of alternative remedy and was dismissed.

---