Writ jurisdiction and statutory remedy: delay and lack of diligence led to refusal of interference over seized records and penalty.

Writ interference was declined where challenge to a penalty order and request for return of seized documents required consideration by the competent statutory authority. The Court noted the petitioner had approached belatedly and had not acted for years to secure return of the records, which undermined the claim for discretionary relief. In these circumstances, the writ court refused to substitute its view for the statutory process and dismissed the petition. The principle applied was that discretionary writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised when the matter calls for determination under the relevant provisions and the petitioner has not shown due diligence in pursuing the relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty order and seeking return of seized documents warranted interference.

Analysis: The petitioner approached the Court after a prolonged delay and had not taken steps for years to secure return of the seized records. The Court found that the question of penalty and the request for return of documents required consideration by the competent authority under the relevant statutory provisions. In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will decline interference where the dispute requires statutory consideration by the competent authority and the petitioner has not acted with due diligence to seek the relief earlier.

---