https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192820 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already invoked and was actively pursuing the statutory appeal under the Sea Customs Act against the confiscation order. The Court distinguished the general rule that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar from the narrower situation where a litigant seeks parallel writ relief while a chosen appellate remedy remains pending. As Article 226 relief is discretionary, the petitioner could not switch to writ jurisdiction without any special facts justifying intervention. The writ petition was dismissed. en-us Thu, 28 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:35:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192820 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already invoked and was actively pursuing the statutory appeal under the Sea Customs Act against the confiscation order. The Court distinguished the general rule that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar from the narrower situation where a litigant seeks parallel writ relief while a chosen appellate remedy remains pending. As Article 226 relief is discretionary, the petitioner could not switch to writ jurisdiction without any special facts justifying intervention. The writ petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192820