Writ jurisdiction cannot support a blanket anti-interference direction when the prayer is vague and unsupported

A writ court should not issue a blanket direction to prevent interference with transport of empty bottles to other States where the prayer is vague and unsupported by a specific, substantiated case of arbitrary action. The Madras HC noted that general and unspecified relief is not maintainable in writ jurisdiction, while preserving the petitioners' right to challenge any future proceedings if they are taken contrary to law and principles of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether a general direction could be issued in writ jurisdiction to prevent interference with the transport of empty bottles to other States.

Analysis: The relief sought was general and unspecified, and the petitioners did not substantiate a clear case of arbitrary interference by the authorities. The court held that a blanket order cannot be granted where the prayer is vague and of a general nature. It also left open the petitioners' right to challenge any future proceedings, if such action is taken contrary to law and principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The request for a general writ direction was not maintainable, and the writ petitions failed.

---