Writ jurisdiction is unavailable for erroneous exercise of jurisdiction if a statutory alternative remedy exists.

The Petitioner, a manufacturer of health and hygiene products, applied for Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS) scrips for the financial year 2019-2020 regarding Research and Development services

The scrips were issued on 20.06.2022

Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 issued show cause notices alleging that the scrips were obtained through misrepresentation and that the Petitioner’s claims were untenable under the 'Research and Development' category

On 27.08.2024, Respondent No. 3 cancelled the scrips and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-

The Petitioner challenged this order and a subsequent 'Denied Entity List' communication via a writ petition, contending that the authority lacked jurisdiction and that no fraud or suppression of facts occurred

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 15(1)(b) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992

1. Whether the impugned order was passed "wholly without jurisdiction," thereby permitting the High Court to entertain the writ petition despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy

2. Whether the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade possessed the pecuniary and subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992

The Court applied the distinction between "lack of inherent jurisdiction" and "wrongful exercise of jurisdiction" as established in Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, noting that the rule of exhaustion of remedies applies strictly to the latter

It relied on Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, which empowers the Director General or authorized officers to impose penalties

The Court further referred to the Government Notification dated 13.06.2013, which authorizes a Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade to adjudicate matters involving goods or services valued up to Rs. 10 crores

The Court observed that while writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked if an order is passed wholly without jurisdiction, a distinction must be maintained for cases involving a mere "erroneous exercise of jurisdiction"

Upon examining the Notification dated 13.06.2013, the Court found that Respondent No. 3 was explicitly authorized to adjudicate cases up to a value of Rs. 10 crores

Since the SEIS scrips in question were valued at approximately Rs. 2.37 crores, the Court determined that Respondent No. 3 possessed the requisite inherent jurisdiction over the subject matter

Consequently, the Petitioner's arguments regarding the absence of fraud or misrepresentation were deemed issues to be merit-evaluated by the Appellate Authority rather than grounds for bypassing the statutory appeal process

The petition was disposed of by relegating the Petitioner to the Appellate Authority under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act

The Court directed that if the appeal is presented within 15 days, it shall not be dismissed on grounds of limitation and must be decided with expedition within three months

Liberty was granted to the Petitioner to seek interim relief before the Appellate Authority