Mandamus against excise arrest requires a legal right and statutory duty; mere apprehension is insufficient.

A writ of mandamus to restrain excise authorities from arresting a person during investigation is available only where a legal right and a corresponding statutory duty are shown. The Allahabad HC noted that the power to summon persons and conduct inquiry under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was validly exercised, and that arrest powers under the Act operate subject to statutory requirements under Section 13. In the absence of any factual foundation or breach of duty supporting the petitioner's apprehension of arrest, mandamus could not be issued. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable on the material presented.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued restraining the excise authorities from arresting the petitioner in the course of an investigation and whether the petitioner had shown any legal basis for such restraint.

Analysis: The power to summon persons and conduct inquiry under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held to be validly exercised, and the Court found no factual foundation showing that the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was supported by the record. The power of arrest under the Act was noted to be conditioned by statutory requirements under Section 13 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and interference by mandamus was considered impermissible where no legal right or failure of statutory duty was established. A writ of mandamus lies only when the petitioner seeks enforcement of a legal right against a corresponding statutory obligation, which was absent here.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to any direction restraining arrest, and the writ petition failed.

---