Alternative statutory remedy prevails; delay observation cannot prejudice later appellate recourse, with limited interim protection granted.

The writ petition was rejected on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy was available, and that ground was upheld. The Court found it unnecessary for the High Court to have made adverse observations on delay at that stage, because any delay in pursuing the statutory remedy would be examined by the forum hearing that remedy. To avoid prejudice, the petitioner was given liberty to file the statutory appeal within a limited period, with interim protection for that purpose and a clarification that the delay observation would not by itself bar consideration by the appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative statutory remedy, and whether the High Court's observation on delay should be allowed to prejudice the petitioner's recourse to that remedy.

Analysis: The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy was not found erroneous. However, the observation that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the delay was considered unnecessary when the writ petition was being rejected on the ground of statutory remedy, since the question of delay would fall for consideration before the forum where the alternative remedy is pursued. To prevent prejudice, liberty was granted to avail the statutory remedy within a specified period, with a clarification that the delay observation would not itself be a ground to reject the matter before the appellate forum. Interim protection was also directed for a limited period to enable filing of the appeal and seeking interim relief.

Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the alternative statutory remedy, along with limited interim protection and a clarification that the delay observation would not by itself operate against the petitioner before the appellate forum.

---