Writ relief cannot defeat an operating statutory stay provision, and mandamus for faster appeal disposal needs supporting material.

Writ interference was unavailable where the interim stay on recovery had already ceased by operation of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, and the relief sought would have overridden the statutory scheme. The Court noted that it could not pass any interim or final order contrary to the second proviso to section 22(5), because the complaint arose from the statute itself rather than from any act of the Tribunal or the respondents. A mandamus for expeditious disposal of the pending appeal was also declined, as there was no material on the Tribunal's docket position or on the feasibility or necessity of such a direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under writ jurisdiction to restrain recovery proceedings when the interim stay granted by the Tribunal had ceased by operation of the statutory provision, and whether a mandamus should issue to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the pending appeal.

Analysis: The interim protection had come to an end by operation of the second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Court held that it could not pass any order, interim or final, which would run contrary to or dilute the efficacy of the statutory provision. Since the situation complained of arose from the statute itself and not from any act of the Tribunal or the respondents, writ interference was unwarranted. The Court also declined to issue a mandamus for expeditious disposal, as it had no material on the Tribunal's docket position or the feasibility of such a direction.

Conclusion: The Court refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction and declined to restrain recovery proceedings or direct expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the relief sought would have overridden the statutory scheme and no basis existed for a supervisory direction to the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not grant relief that defeats an operating statutory provision, and mandamus for expedited disposal will not issue in the absence of material showing the feasibility or necessity of such a direction.

---