Quasi-Judicial Independence in Rule Classification Bars Writ Interference at the Show Cause Stage

A trade notice of general application does not bind the quasi-judicial authority when deciding whether the facts fall under Rule 57F(2) or Rule 57F(4). The authority issuing the show cause notice must consider the objections on merits and determine the applicable rule independently. At the notice stage, when explanation and adjudication remain open, writ interference is not warranted. On that basis, a challenge to the show cause notice and the trade notice is not maintainable at the show cause stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notice and the trade notice were maintainable at the stage of notice, and whether the trade notice could bind the quasi-judicial authority in deciding whether the case fell under Rule 57F(2) or Rule 57F(4).

Analysis: The trade notice was held to be general in nature and not determinative of the petitioners' individual case. The authority issuing the show cause notice was required to consider the objections on merits and decide, as a quasi-judicial authority, whether the facts attracted Rule 57F(2) or Rule 57F(4). Since the notice stage was still open for explanation and adjudication, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notice and the trade notice was not entertainable at the show cause stage, and the writ petitions failed.

---