Alternate statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction when an efficacious appeal exists under the Imports & Exports framework.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, Article 226 writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked and the party must first exhaust the alternate remedy. The impugned order was held amenable to appeal under Section 4(M)(1)(b), so the petitioners were directed to pursue the appellate remedy before the Additional Chief Controller at New Delhi instead of continuing with the writ petition. The note also records that the appeal would be time-barred on the decision date and that an application for condonation of delay would need to accompany the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 or the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory appeal under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

Analysis: The impugned order was amenable to appeal under Section 4(M)(1)(b) of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. In view of the availability of that statutory remedy, the petitioners were directed to pursue the appeal before the Additional Chief Controller at New Delhi rather than continue with the writ petition. The order also records that the appeal would be time-barred on the date of the decision and contemplates filing an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioners were relegated to the alternate statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked, and the party must first exhaust the alternate remedy.

---