Writ jurisdiction relief where a connected earlier order covers the dispute, leading to quashing of the challenged notice and order.

Where the respondents accept that the challenge is covered by an earlier binding order in a connected matter, the writ court may grant identical relief in certiorari proceedings under Article 226. On that basis, the Bombay HC quashed the impugned notice and consequential order, allowing the petition and setting aside the challenged proceedings. The court proceeded on the respondents' non-dispute of the petitioner's claim that the matter was covered by the earlier order, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned notice and consequential order were liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition was stated to be covered by an earlier order passed in a connected matter involving the petitioner's brother. The respondents did not dispute this position and agreed to the relief sought. The petition was therefore taken up on that basis.

Conclusion: The impugned notice and order were quashed and the petition was allowed in terms of the prayer for certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the challenged proceedings were set aside, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the respondents accept that the matter is covered by an earlier binding order, the writ court may grant identical relief and quash the challenged action.

---