Merger principle bars indirect writ relief when appellate and revisional orders lie beyond the High Court's territorial jurisdiction.

When an original excise order is carried in appeal or revision, the operative order becomes that of the appellate or revisional authority under the merger principle. If those higher authorities have disposed of the matter and lie outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, the Court cannot indirectly challenge their orders by issuing a writ against the original authority. The writ was therefore not maintainable, and relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the assessee's appeal and revision against a central excise order were dismissed, a writ of certiorari could still be issued against the original excise authority within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appeal and revision had been disposed of by the higher authorities, and the governing principle was that once an order is taken in appeal, the operative order becomes the appellate or revisional order. The Court applied the merger principle and held that even where the appeal is dismissed and the original order is merely confirmed, the effective order is that of the authority disposing of the appeal or revision. Since the appellate and revisional authorities were beyond territorial jurisdiction, the High Court could not indirectly interfere with those orders by issuing a writ to the original authority.

Conclusion: The writ against the original authority was not maintainable, and the application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: When an original order has been carried in appeal or revision and the higher authority has disposed of the matter, the operative order is that of the appellate or revisional authority, and a High Court lacking territorial jurisdiction over that authority cannot grant relief by directing a writ against the original authority.

---