Writ jurisdiction remains available despite parallel criminal proceedings when civil legality of the export ban determines the consequential action.

Pendency of criminal proceedings arising from the same transaction did not bar writ adjudication on the legality of the export ban and the consequential seizure, forfeiture and prosecutions. The High Court retained power to decide whether the ban had been validly lifted, because that civil legality question was foundational to the later criminal action and could be determined on its own merits. The Supreme Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable and should not have been declined merely due to parallel prosecutions. The refusal to decide on merits was set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in declining to decide the writ petitions on merits because criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction were pending. (ii) Whether the validity of the export ban and the consequential action taken against the exported maize could be examined in the writ jurisdiction notwithstanding such criminal proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in declining to decide the writ petitions on merits because criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction were pending.

Analysis: The pendency of criminal proceedings did not oust the High Court's power to decide the writ petitions. The controversy before the Court was whether the ban on export had been lifted and whether the consequential refusal to deliver, seizure, forfeiture, and prosecutions could stand. Those questions could be determined on their own merits in the writ proceedings. The presence of the prosecuting authorities or the State of West Bengal was not necessary for deciding the legality of the challenge before the Court. The mere existence of consequential criminal proceedings was no ground to refuse adjudication.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the validity of the export ban and the consequential action taken against the exported maize could be examined in the writ jurisdiction notwithstanding such criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The validity of the consequential proceedings depended on whether the export ban had been validly lifted. If the ban had been lifted, the later seizure, forfeiture, and prosecutions would fall. The Court reiterated that civil adjudication on the legality of the export would govern the foundation of the consequential criminal action, since the findings of civil courts bind criminal courts and not vice versa. The writ court therefore had to decide the substantive controversy on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable and required decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the refusal to decide the writ petitions was set aside, and the matters were sent back for adjudication on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court should not refuse to adjudicate a writ petition on merits merely because consequential criminal proceedings arising from the same transaction are pending, where the civil determination of legality is foundational to those proceedings.

---