Writ under Art. 226 rejected due to effective appellate remedy and pre-deposit, petitioner directed to statutory appeal

HC dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable on the ground of availability of an efficacious statutory appellate remedy against the impugned order. The petitioner sought to bypass the appellate forum to avoid the mandatory pre-deposit requirement, but the HC held that its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent statutory conditions. Relying on prior precedent, the HC found no exceptional circumstances pleaded or substantiated to justify deviation from the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging show cause notices and a consequential order is maintainable when an alternate and efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available.

1.2 Whether vague and cursory pleadings alleging breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of constitutional rights are sufficient to invoke the recognised exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies.

1.3 Whether, while declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, the Court should grant liberty regarding limitation for filing appeal and keep open the challenge to the show cause notices.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of writ petition in the presence of an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Court noted that the impugned order is appealable and that an appellate remedy is available to the petitioner under the statute.

2.2 The Court found from the petition that the petitioner essentially wishes to assail the impugned order on merits but has chosen not to approach the Appellate Authority, apparently to avoid the statutory requirement of pre-deposit of a percentage of the demanded amount.

2.3 The Court held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in equity to bypass clear statutory provisions providing for an appeal, nor can it be invoked to permit parties to circumvent such alternate remedies.

2.4 Relying on the reasoning in a prior decision of the Court on exhaustion of alternate remedies, and the precedents considered therein, the Court reaffirmed that deviation from the settled practice of insisting on exhaustion of alternate remedies is not warranted in the present case.

2.5 The Court further relied on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reiterating that High Courts should not entertain petitions under Article 226 when effective statutory remedies are available, except in exceptional cases falling within recognised exceptions.

Conclusions

2.6 The writ petition challenging the impugned order was held not maintainable in view of the available and efficacious statutory appellate remedy, and the Court declined to entertain it on this ground.

Issue 2: Adequacy of pleadings to attract exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 The petitioner contended that certain submissions were not considered in the impugned order and invoked grounds including contravention of procedural fairness, lack of jurisdiction, absence of authority of law, being contrary to settled law, violation of principles of natural justice, and breach of rights under Articles 14, 265 and 300A of the Constitution.

2.8 The Court examined the pleadings, particularly the relevant paragraph, and characterised the averments as extremely vague and cursory, noting that practically all possible grounds were mechanically invoked without elaboration or supporting particulars.

2.9 The Court observed that to attract the recognised exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of alternate remedies, a petitioner must plead and establish an exceptional case, supported by proper pleadings and material.

2.10 It was further observed that in the present matter, an attempt was made at the stage of arguments to advance a case that was not even properly pleaded, while the case that had been cursorily pleaded was effectively given up.

Conclusions

2.11 The Court held that the vague and unsupported allegations of breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and constitutional violations did not bring the case within any recognised exception to the rule of alternate remedy.

2.12 On this basis also, no ground was made out to entertain the writ petition in preference to the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue 3: Directions on liberty to appeal, limitation, and preservation of challenge to show cause notices

Interpretation and reasoning

2.13 While declining to entertain the writ petition, the Court considered the need to ensure that the petitioner is not prejudiced on the question of limitation in availing the appellate remedy.

2.14 The Court directed that if an appeal against the impugned order is filed within four weeks from the date of the order, and all legal requirements (including pre-deposit, if any) are complied with, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal on its own merits without going into the issue of limitation.

2.15 The Court also noted the existence of a separate prayer challenging the show cause notices and considered it appropriate to preserve the petitioner's right to raise that challenge in the future, depending on the outcome of the appellate proceedings under the statute.

Conclusions

2.16 Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order within four weeks, with a specific direction to the Appellate Authority not to reject such appeal on the ground of limitation.

2.17 The challenge to the show cause notices, as contained in the relevant prayer clause, was expressly kept open to be pursued if the petitioner does not obtain relief from the appellate authorities.

2.18 The petition was disposed of in these terms, with no order as to costs.

---