Factual disputes over detained excisable goods must first be raised before the detaining authority, not decided directly in writ jurisdiction.

A writ challenge to detention of excisable goods failed where the objections depended on disputed facts about the identity of the liable entity and ownership of the goods. The High Court declined to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction as an original fact-finding forum and held that such factual disputes should first be placed before the detaining authority by representation. The petition was therefore not maintainable on those grounds, with liberty to seek redress before the authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could succeed where the challenge to the detention order rested on disputed questions of fact and the petitioners had not first approached the detaining authority with their objections.

Analysis: The petition assailed detention of excisable goods under the Central Excise Rules on the basis that the recovery was not against the correct legal entity and that the detained goods belonged to another concern. These objections turned on factual questions as to identity of the entities concerned and ownership of the goods. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court declined to act as the original fact-finding authority. It held that the petitioners should first have made a representation to the detaining authority, which could then decide the objections in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the factual objections raised for the first time before the Court and was dismissed, with liberty to approach the detaining authority by representation.

---