Maintainability of writ against a consequential order fails when the foundational original order is left unchallenged.

A writ petition that challenges only a consequential order is not maintainable when the foundational original order is left unassailed. Here, the liability flowed from an earlier order, and the petitioner sought to quash only the later consequential order without questioning the original determination. The court noted that the petitioner also failed to produce proof of payment despite repeated reminders. Because the original order remained intact, the consequential order could not be independently attacked, and the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging only the consequential order was maintainable without assailing the original order.

Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash the consequential order dated 04.04.2016 without challenging the original order dated 28.02.2007. The stated basis of liability arose from the earlier order, and the petitioner had not produced evidence of payment despite repeated reminders. In the absence of a challenge to the foundational order, the consequential order could not be independently attacked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---