Alternate statutory remedy bars writ intervention where the adjudication order itself sets out the appeal route and limitation period.

A writ petition challenging an adjudication order was refused where an efficacious statutory appeal was available and clearly specified in the order, including the appellate forum and limitation period. The Court held that allegations of limitation issues and bias required factual examination and did not show a complete lack of jurisdiction justifying writ intervention. It reiterated that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the statutory appellate process unless recognised exceptions are made out, and the petition was dismissed for want of justification to ignore the alternate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the impugned adjudication order should be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal, and whether the asserted grounds justified bypassing the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The order recorded that the impugned adjudication itself specified the appellate remedy, the authority before whom the appeal lay, and the limitation period. The Court found no justification for bypassing that remedy, noting that the complaints regarding limitation and bias required examination of facts and could not establish a complete absence of jurisdiction at the writ stage. The Court also reiterated that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be used to frustrate the statutory process unless the recognised exceptions apply.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed for want of justification to bypass the alternate statutory remedy.

---