Writ jurisdiction declined at show-cause stage, with petitioners directed to reply before the departmental authority first.

Writ jurisdiction was declined where the petitioners had been served show-cause notices but had not first filed replies before the competent authority. The Court held that the grievance was premature for judicial examination at that stage and that the petitioners should place their defence before the Assistant Collector. Time was granted to submit replies, after which the authority was to consider them and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. The excise dispute was therefore left to the departmental process rather than being adjudicated on merits in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained in view of the pending show-cause notices and the petitioners' failure to respond before the authority concerned.

Analysis: The Court found that the petition arose at a stage where the petitioners had been served show-cause notices and had not submitted replies before the competent authority. It held that the facts did not justify examination of the grievance in writ jurisdiction at that stage and that the petitioners ought to place their defence before the Assistant Collector. The Court accordingly granted time to file replies, after which the authority was to consider them and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory and departmental process for reply and adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The matter was concluded without adjudication of the excise dispute, leaving the petitioners to respond to the notices and obtain decision from the departmental authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging excise demands and show-cause notices will ordinarily not be entertained when the party has not first availed the opportunity to reply before the competent authority.

---