Appellate interference with interim writ orders declined where ownership and statutory applicability remained disputed for final determination.

Appellate interference with an interlocutory writ order was declined because the dispute turned on disputed factual questions about ownership of the goods and vehicle, together with the applicability of Central and State enactments, which were left for final adjudication by the writ court. No error was found in the impugned order warranting intra-court intervention, and the appellate court refused to usurp the learned single Judge's jurisdiction. The interim challenge therefore failed, leaving the writ proceedings to be decided independently and uninfluenced by the appellate observations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interlocutory order refusing immediate relief in the writ proceedings called for interference in the intra-court appeal.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an interim stage and involved disputed questions regarding the authenticity of ownership of the goods and vehicle as well as the applicability of the Central and State enactments. Such questions were held to lie within the province of the writ court at the stage of final adjudication. No error was found in the impugned order warranting appellate interference, and the Court declined to usurp the jurisdiction of the learned single Judge.

Conclusion: Interference in appeal was declined and the challenge to the interlocutory order failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by refusing to interfere with the interim order, leaving the writ court free to decide the pending issues uninfluenced by the observations made.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference with an interlocutory order is unwarranted where the dispute turns on factual controversies and legal questions reserved for final determination by the writ court.

---