Writ challenge to search and seizure for want of jurisdiction requires merits review, not summary dismissal on alternative remedy

A writ petition challenging search and seizure action on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, mala fides, and procedural illegality should not be dismissed at the threshold merely because an alternative remedy exists. Where the challenge goes to the very authority to act and the legality of the procedure adopted, the respondents should be required to file a reply and place the relevant material before the Court. Allegations concerning the constitution of the committee, the basis for the raid, and the alleged collection of money involved factual questions that required examination on an appropriate record. The matter therefore called for consideration on merits after hearing the respondents.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging search and seizure action on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, mala fides, and procedural illegality could be dismissed in limine merely because an alternative remedy was available.

Analysis: The challenge was not confined to the merits of the search and seizure but went to the very authority to act and the legality of the procedure adopted. In such circumstances, where serious allegations of absence of jurisdiction and improper exercise of power were raised, the respondents should have been called upon to file a reply and place the relevant material before the Court. The existence of an alternative remedy did not, by itself, justify summary dismissal when the petition alleged that the foundational conditions for exercise of power were absent. The material placed before the Court also showed that factual issues relating to the constitution of the committee, the basis for the raid, and the alleged collection of money required adjudication on an appropriate record.

Conclusion: The petition ought not to have been dismissed in limine, and the matter required consideration on merits after hearing the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition alleging want of jurisdiction or mala fide exercise of statutory search and seizure power should not be rejected at the threshold without obtaining the respondents' reply and examining the foundational facts.

---