Statutory appellate remedy prevailed, with writ intervention declined and withdrawal requests allowed so appeals could be restored.

Where the petitioners had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy against the original orders, writ intervention was not considered appropriate at that stage, and they were relegated to the appellate forum. The Court nevertheless allowed withdrawal of the communications seeking withdrawal of the appeals, so that the appeals could be restored if necessary and then heard on merits in accordance with law, subject to statutory compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioners had already availed the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the petitioners should be permitted to withdraw their withdrawal requests so that the appeals may be restored and pursued.

Analysis: The petitioners had filed appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals against the orders in original. In view of the availability and prior invocation of the statutory remedy, the petition was not treated as fit for writ intervention at that stage. At the same time, the Court considered it appropriate not to leave the petitioners remediless and allowed them to withdraw the letters dated 30 September 2024 seeking withdrawal of the appeals, with a corresponding direction that, if necessary, the appeals be restored and then heard on merits in accordance with law, subject to statutory compliance.

Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate forum, were permitted to withdraw the withdrawal communications, and were allowed to pursue restoration and adjudication of the appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals.

---