Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedies bar interference with pending tribunal insolvency proceedings where forum shopping is evident.

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should ordinarily not be used to seek directions affecting pending tribunal proceedings when an alternative statutory remedy is available. The petitioner sought early listing of a transfer application and a status quo order in ongoing insolvency proceedings, but had not first exhausted remedies before the tribunal or appellate forum; the transfer request was also brought late after participation in the proceedings. The High Court noted that special bench and vacation listing matters lie within the tribunal president's domain and that similar relief had been pursued in multiple forums. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the requested directions were refused, with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking directions for early hearing of the transfer application and for a status quo order against pending insolvency proceedings before the tribunal was maintainable, in view of the availability of alternative remedies and the settled limits on interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The reliefs sought did not challenge any adjudicated order of the tribunal but asked for directions to secure urgent listing of the transfer application and to restrain further proceedings in the insolvency matter. The constitution of a special bench and vacation listing lay within the tribunal president's domain, and the petitioner had not first exhausted the remedies available before the tribunal or the appellate forum. The Court also noted that the transfer application was filed at a belated stage after participation in the insolvency proceedings, and that multiple forums had been approached for substantially similar reliefs. In these circumstances, invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction against a pending tribunal matter was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the requested directions could not be granted. The petition was dismissed, with costs, against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: High Courts should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction to grant directions affecting pending tribunal proceedings where an alternative statutory remedy exists and the litigant has engaged in forum shopping or abused the process of law.

---