Writ jurisdiction over show cause notices remains limited unless the notice is shown to be without jurisdiction or legally unsustainable.

Availability of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226, but interference at the show cause notice stage is justified only where the notice is shown on admitted facts to be without jurisdiction or otherwise legally unsustainable. A mistaken departmental interpretation of a notification, without more, does not establish lack of jurisdiction. In the absence of material showing that the notice was founded on extraneous considerations, arbitrariness, or any jurisdictional defect, no ground exists for quashing it in writ proceedings. The impugned show cause notice was therefore not without jurisdiction and did not warrant interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition could be entertained to quash a show cause notice despite the availability of an alternate remedy, and whether the impugned notice was shown to be without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Availability of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but interference at the show cause notice stage is justified only where the notice is shown on admitted facts to be without jurisdiction or otherwise legally unsustainable. A mistaken interpretation of a notification by the Department does not by itself establish absence of jurisdiction, and there was nothing on record to show that the notice was founded on extraneous considerations or arbitrariness.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was not without jurisdiction and no ground was made out for interference under writ jurisdiction.

---