Writ jurisdiction cannot compel inclusion in an excise exemption policy after an earlier coordinate Bench decision

Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel inclusion of a specific khasra number in an area-based excise exemption notification where an earlier coordinate Bench decision had already concluded the issue. Relief not granted in the earlier writ proceedings was treated as impliedly refused, and judicial review under Article 226 was held not to extend to directing changes in a policy-based exemption scheme. The requested mandamus was therefore declined and the writ petition rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, direct inclusion of khasra no. 294 in the area-based excise exemption notification notwithstanding the earlier decision and the policy character of the exemption scheme.

Analysis: The relief sought required the Court to direct inclusion of a specific khasra number in the exemption notification. The Court treated the controversy as already concluded by the earlier coordinate Bench decision and accepted that a relief not granted in the earlier writ proceedings must be taken as impliedly refused. It further held that directing inclusion of specified khasra numbers would amount to interference in policy matters, which is not warranted in judicial review under Article 226.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the requested mandamus and the writ petition was rejected.

---