Writ jurisdiction and parallel remedies: court declined direct release of seized money pending revision and tax authority review.

Where a challenge to the Magistrate's custody order was already pending in revision and departmental proceedings were underway, the writ court declined to grant immediate release of the seized money. The Court held that the petitioner should first approach the appropriate income tax authority to assert ownership and seek release, while also pursuing the pending revision remedy. In the absence of prior adjudication by the competent authority or court, exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for direct release was unwarranted. The refusal to grant writ relief was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court should grant relief for release of money when a challenge to the Magistrate's custody order was already pending in revision before the Sessions Court and departmental proceedings had also been initiated; (ii) Whether the petitioner could obtain a direction for release of the seized amount in exercise of writ jurisdiction without first approaching the appropriate income tax authority.

Issue (i): The relief sought in the writ petition substantially overlapped with the challenge pending in revision against the Magistrate's order granting interim custody of the amount to the Income Tax Department. The departmental authorities had also initiated centralization proceedings and were in seisin of the matter. In these circumstances, the writ court declined to interfere while parallel proceedings were pending.

Conclusion: The writ court would not grant the requested relief at that stage.

Issue (ii): The Court held that the petitioner should first approach the appropriate income tax authority asserting ownership and seeking release of the amount, and could also pursue the pending revision remedy. Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held to be unwarranted for direct release of the money absent prior adjudication by the competent authority or court.

Conclusion: No direction for release of the amount could be issued in writ jurisdiction at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the refusal to grant writ relief was upheld, leaving the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the competent authority or court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious or parallel statutory remedy is available and the competent authority has not yet adjudicated the claim, the writ court should ordinarily decline to direct release of disputed property in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.

---