Writ of prohibition in excise adjudication fails where cross-examination denial shows no prejudice and statutory remedies remain available.

A writ of prohibition is limited to preventing assumption or excess of jurisdiction and is not ordinarily used to interrupt ongoing adjudication or correct alleged errors on merits. In a central excise proceeding, refusal of cross-examination did not by itself establish breach of natural justice because prejudice had to be shown, and the matter had already been closed for orders. The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal and further appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, weighed against Article 226 interference. On those facts, prohibition was not maintainable and the natural justice challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain adjudication proceedings in a central excise matter on the ground of denial of cross-examination and breach of natural justice, notwithstanding the availability of statutory appellate remedies.

Analysis: The request for prohibition was examined against the settled scope of the writ, which is primarily supervisory and meant to prevent assumption or excess of jurisdiction, not to correct the course of an ongoing adjudication or a possible error on the merits. The Court noted that the petitioners themselves had declined to argue the matter on merits before the adjudicating authority after the request for cross-examination was not acceded to, and that the proceedings had already been closed for orders. It further held that the rules of natural justice are flexible and that refusal of cross-examination does not, by itself, establish a violation unless actual prejudice is shown. The existence of a complete statutory remedy under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, including appeal and further appeal provisions, was also treated as a strong reason not to interdict the adjudication at this stage.

Conclusion: A writ of prohibition was not maintainable on the facts, and the challenge based on natural justice was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of prohibition will not issue to stop a completed or near-completed adjudication merely because cross-examination was declined, unless there is a clear jurisdictional defect or demonstrable prejudice; where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, the Court will ordinarily decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---