Writ jurisdiction cannot reopen disputed service facts where a statutory appeal exists against a Debts Recovery Tribunal order.

Writ jurisdiction should not be used to re-examine disputed questions of fact, including alleged non-service, refusal of summons, or the validity of substituted service, where the Debts Recovery Tribunal proceeded ex parte after repeated service attempts and publication. The High Court also held that interference was unwarranted when the statutory scheme provided an appeal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and no jurisdictional error or clear breach of natural justice was shown. The Tribunal's ex parte order and refusal to set it aside were therefore not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction with the Debts Recovery Tribunal's ex parte order and the order refusing to set it aside on the ground of alleged non-service and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The challenge turned on disputed questions of fact concerning service of summons, alleged refusal, and the validity of substituted service by publication. The Tribunal had proceeded ex parte only after repeated attempts at service and publication, and the later application to set aside the ex parte order was rejected. The High Court held that such factual s were not appropriate for determination in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the statutory scheme under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provided an appeal under section 20. The Court also noted that interference under writ jurisdiction is not warranted merely on a technical approach where the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere and upheld the Tribunal's orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should not be used to re-examine disputed questions of fact or to bypass an available statutory appeal against an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal where no jurisdictional error or clear violation of natural justice is shown.

---