Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy exists before the specialized Coal Tribunal.

The Petitioner challenged an appropriation order dated 06.11.2024 issued by the Nominated Authority under the Central Government, which directed the appropriation of 10% of the Petitioner’s Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) and required a "top-up" within fifteen days.

The Petitioner argued that the authority failed to consider its specific representation dated 29.07.2024, indicating a lack of application of mind.

An interim stay on the PBG appropriation was granted on 18.11.2024.

The Respondent contended that the matter should be relegated to the statutory Tribunal, citing several precedents where petitioners were directed to seek alternate remedies.

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when a specialized statutory tribunal is available for dispute resolution.

Whether the dispute regarding the appropriation of Performance Bank Guarantees falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.

The Court applied the settled principle of "alternate efficacious remedy," which dictates that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in the first instance when a statute provides a specialized forum for redressal, except in exceptional circumstances.

The specific legal framework applied included Section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, which confers powers upon the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 to adjudicate such grievances.

The Court further relied on a series of precedents, including Yazdani International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and JSW Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, to emphasize the requirement of relegating coal-sector disputes to the Tribunal.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s grievances—specifically the alleged non-application of mind by the Nominated Authority and procedural infirmities—fall squarely within the "adjudicatory domain" of the statutory Tribunal.

It reasoned that the statute provides a "complete and efficacious mechanism" for examining procedural errors, representations, and consequential actions like PBG appropriation.

The Court found no "exceptional circumstances" to deviate from the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies, noting that even subsequent developments, such as the alleged termination and withdrawal of the agreement, are matters best examined by the specialized Tribunal rather than the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

However, to protect the Petitioner's interests during the transition, the Court ordered that the interim protection against the appropriation of the PBG shall remain in force until the Tribunal decides the Petitioner's stay application.

Furthermore, if the Tribunal’s decision is adverse to the Petitioner, the order shall be kept in abeyance for fifteen days to allow the Petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.