Writ jurisdiction is declined where an efficacious statutory appeal exists absent exceptional circumstances.

The petitioner challenged proceedings initiated against him under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, including the certificate issued under Sections 4 and 6, the notice dated 5 October 2018 under Section 7, the order dated 11 March 2019 in Certificate Case No. 13/2017-18 (Misc.), and the warrant of arrest issued on the same date.

The respondents opposed maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 60(1)(a) of the Act against the Certificate Officer’s order.

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.

Whether any exceptional circumstance existed warranting interference by the High Court despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy.

Section 60(1)(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 provides a statutory remedy of appeal against an order of the Certificate Officer.

The Court applied the principle that the High Court ordinarily declines to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances justify direct interference.

The petitioner’s challenge concerned orders and steps taken in certificate proceedings under the Act. Since Section 60 provided an efficacious appellate remedy against the Certificate Officer’s order, the Court held that the writ petition should not be entertained at that stage.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance warranting invocation of Article 226 despite the alternative remedy. Accordingly, the Court declined to examine the merits and granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Any delay in filing the appeal within that period was directed to be condoned, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal preferably within three months of filing.

In the meantime, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner in connection with the certificate proceedings, subject to his availing the statutory remedy within the prescribed period.