Writ interference declined where a clarification left the adjudicating authority free to decide the show cause notice independently.

The writ challenge to a clarification communication was not entertained because the communication only stated that the adjudicating authority must decide the pending show cause notice independently and without being influenced by the earlier instruction dated 15.04.2013. The Court treated the petition as repetitive, since the dispute had already moved through earlier proceedings and the impugned communication did not curtail the authority's duty to decide the notice in accordance with law. As the communication preserved adjudicatory independence, no separate writ relief was warranted, and the petitioner was left to pursue the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the clarification communication deserved interference and whether the petitioner could seek modification of the clarification instead of pursuing the adjudication of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The communication merely recorded that the adjudicating authority should decide the pending show cause notice independently and without being influenced by the earlier instruction dated 15.04.2013. The dispute had already travelled through earlier proceedings, and the Court treated the present writ petition as repetitive. Since the adjudicating authority was required to decide the notice in accordance with law and the impugned communication itself preserved that independence, no separate writ relief was warranted at this stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the communication was not entertained and the petitioner was left to pursue the adjudication of the show cause notice.

---