Writ maintainability upheld where an excise directive directly burdened the petitioner and the exemption entitlement was already clarified.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held maintainable where the impugned excise directive directly affected the party ultimately bearing the duty burden, even though the initial levy was cast on another person. The court rejected the objection that the petitioner should be driven to the departmental authorities, because entitlement under the exemption notification had already been clarified and accepted. In those circumstances, resort to an alternate departmental remedy was unnecessary, the maintainability challenge failed, and relief was granted by setting aside the directive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could maintain the writ petition to challenge the excise directive and obtain relief on the basis of the exemption notification, and whether it was necessary to drive the petitioner to the departmental authorities in view of the earlier appellate order.

Analysis: The directive challenged affected the petitioner because the duty burden, though initially cast on another party, was ultimately borne by the petitioner. The objection that the petitioner should pursue relief before the authorities was rejected because the entitlement under the exemption notification had already been clarified and accepted, making further resort to the departmental forum unnecessary. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was therefore held to be properly invoked.

Conclusion: The objections to maintainability failed and the petitioner was held entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned directive was set aside, with the rule nisi made absolute and no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legal position is clear and the impugned action directly affects the party ultimately burdened by the duty, writ relief need not be withheld on the ground of an alternate departmental remedy.

---