Statutory appellate remedy preserved with interim protection against coercive action while appeal and delay condonation are filed.

The High Court declined to examine the merits of the challenge to the order-in-original and DRC-07, as the petitioner was to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. It granted liberty to file an appeal within two weeks with the required pre-deposit and a delay condonation application, leaving all factual and legal grounds open for the appellate authority. The question of delay was directed to be considered in accordance with law. To preserve the efficacy of the appellate remedy, the Court restrained coercive steps only for the period available to file the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained against the order-in-original and DRC-07 when the petitioner is to avail the statutory appellate remedy, and whether interim protection should be granted to enable filing of the appeal.

Analysis: The petitioner chose to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and sought liberty to file an appeal with the requisite pre-deposit along with a delay condonation application. The Court did not examine the merits of the challenge and left all factual and legal grounds open for consideration by the appellate authority. It also directed that the question of delay be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. To preserve the efficacy of the statutory remedy, the Court restrained coercive action for the limited period allowed for filing the appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application, and by directing that no coercive steps be taken meanwhile.

---