Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be refused when used to evade an admitted liability and obtain an unfair advantage.

Writ relief under Article 226 may be refused where a petitioner admits liability and uses extraordinary jurisdiction only to resist recovery. The Court treated the guarantor's liability as undisputed and noted that the amount remained unpaid despite opportunity. Because writ jurisdiction is discretionary, interference can be declined when it would defeat the interests of justice or permit an unfair advantage. On these facts, the attempt was to avoid an admitted monetary obligation through writ proceedings, so relief was rightly denied and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be refused where the petitioner admits liability but seeks to resist recovery through writ proceedings.

Analysis: The liability as guarantor was not in dispute, and the appellant had failed to discharge the amount despite opportunity. In writ jurisdiction, relief is discretionary, and the Court may decline interference where granting relief would defeat the interests of justice or enable a petitioner to secure an unfair advantage. On the facts, the attempt was to avoid payment of an admitted liability through the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

Conclusion: Relief under Article 226 was rightly refused, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: A petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to evade an admitted monetary liability, and discretionary relief may be denied where interference would perpetuate an unjust gain.

Ratio Decidendi: The extraordinary writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be refused when its invocation would defeat justice by enabling a party to avoid an admitted liability or obtain an unjust advantage.

---