Second writ petition not ordinarily maintainable, but continued non-compliance can justify enforcement of an earlier judicial direction.

A second writ petition on the same grievance was ordinarily not maintainable where an earlier judicial direction required the authority to consider the petitioner's documents and pass a speaking order. However, continued non-compliance with that earlier order justified enforcement of the prior direction in the later proceeding. The court therefore gave limited relief by making the earlier direction operative, while reiterating that repeated writ recourse is not the proper remedy for the same complaint.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a second writ petition was maintainable when earlier directions for adjudication had not been complied with; and (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to further relief in relation to the seized goods.

Issue (i): whether a second writ petition was maintainable when earlier directions for adjudication had not been complied with.

Analysis: The Court noted that an earlier petition had resulted in directions requiring the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's documents and pass a speaking order within the stipulated time. Despite production of the certified copy of that order, no effective decision had been taken. The Court observed that, strictly speaking, the proper course against disobedience of earlier directions was to seek appropriate action for non-compliance, and that a second writ on the same footing was not maintainable in the ordinary course.

Conclusion: The second writ petition was treated as not maintainable in principle, but the Court did not leave the matter without relief because of the continuing non-compliance by the authorities.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to further relief in relation to the seized goods.

Analysis: The seizure arose from the alleged absence of the requisite excise papers during transport under the relevant excise regime. Since the authorities had not acted on the earlier judicial directions and were avoiding compliance, the Court considered it appropriate to make the earlier direction operative in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The earlier direction was made absolute, resulting in relief to the petitioner to the extent of enforcement of the prior order.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with limited relief to the petitioner by enforcing the earlier judicial direction, while reiterating that repeated writ recourse for the same grievance was ordinarily not the proper remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A second writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable on the same grievance, but continued non-compliance with an earlier judicial direction may justify enforcement of that direction in the subsequent proceeding.

---