Writ jurisdiction declined where import-licence refusal turned on disputed facts; statutory remedies under prohibition law were preferred.

Disputed questions of fact regarding refusal of an import licence and import pass, including exemption from licensing requirements, whether Eau-de-cologne was unfit for use as intoxicating liquor, and allegations of mala fides, were held unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The more appropriate course was to pursue the statutory appeal or revision under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and the writ petitions were not entertained on merits. The pendency of the writ proceedings was treated as sufficient cause to condone delay in invoking those statutory remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions should be entertained against the refusal of an import licence and import pass, or whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory remedies under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 in view of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The petitioners' principal complaint was the earlier non-disposal of their licence application, but the application had since been considered and rejected. The challenge to that rejection turned on factual matters, including whether the import of Eau-de-cologne was exempt from the licensing requirements, whether the article had been duly determined to be unfit for use as intoxicating liquor, and whether the refusal was actuated by mala fides in favour of local manufacturers. Such matters were not suited to determination in writ jurisdiction. The statutory appeal or revision under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was held to be the more appropriate remedy, and the pendency of the writ petitions was treated as sufficient cause for condoning delay in pursuing those remedies.

Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to their statutory remedies, and the writ petitions were not entertained on merits.

---