Writ jurisdiction and pending revision: High Court declined to examine a penalty order already under statutory challenge.

Where a statutory revision against a penalty order is already pending, the writ court need not exercise its jurisdiction to examine the merits of the same order. The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a penalty imposed for breach of section 29-A(8) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, because the petitioners had already invoked the revisional remedy. The challenge was therefore left for determination by the revisional authority, and interference in writ jurisdiction was refused at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty order was maintainable when a revision against the same order was already pending.

Analysis: The petitioners had already invoked the revisional remedy against the penalty order passed for breach of sub-section (8) of section 29-A of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. In these circumstances, the Court declined to examine the validity of the penalty order in writ jurisdiction and required the petitioners to pursue the pending revision.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits because the petitioners were directed to pursue the pending revision.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty order was left to the revisional authority, and the writ court declined to interfere at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory revisional remedy concerning the same order is already pending, writ jurisdiction need not be exercised to decide the merits of the impugned order.

---