Alternative remedy bars writ relief where a penalty order was duly authorised and no jurisdictional defect was shown.

The writ petition was not entertained because an adequate and efficacious departmental appeal was available and had not been pursued in time, so the writ court declined to exercise its jurisdiction. The jurisdictional challenge to the penalty order also failed, as the order had been passed after due authorisation by the Reserve Bank of India, leaving no sustainable defect in the authority's power to act. The petition was therefore rejected on the combined grounds of alternative remedy and absence of jurisdictional infirmity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious alternative appellate remedy, and whether the impugned penalty order suffered from a jurisdictional defect.

Analysis: The order records that the penalty had been passed after due authorisation by the Reserve Bank of India, and therefore the challenge to the authority's jurisdiction was found unsustainable. It further notes that an appellate remedy had been available and had not been pursued within time, and that there was no reason for the writ court to exercise its jurisdiction when an adequate and efficacious departmental appeal was open to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected on the ground of availability of an adequate alternative remedy, and the jurisdictional objection was not accepted.

---