Writ interference is inappropriate where exemption eligibility remains for the competent authority to decide after hearing the affected party.

Writ interference was not appropriate where the competent authority still had to determine eligibility for an exemption certificate and the affected company had an effective opportunity to respond. The proper course was for the company to answer the notice before the Director General, who could consider all objections, including jurisdictional points, and then decide the matter after hearing the company. On that basis, the challenge to cancellation could not be sustained at the writ stage, and the authority was required to pass a speaking order after considering the response.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court ought to have interfered with the cancellation of the exemption certificate and whether the company should first have replied before the Director General, who was required to grant a hearing and pass a speaking order.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification depended on satisfaction of the prescribed conditions and on the certificate issued by the competent authority. The cancellation was sought on the ground that further particulars were required for determining eligibility, and the company had not placed its response before that authority. The Court held that the proper course was for the company to answer the notice before the Director General, who could consider all permissible objections, including the question of jurisdiction, and decide the matter after hearing the company. In these circumstances, interference in writ jurisdiction at that stage was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation could not be sustained in writ proceedings at that stage, and the company was required to pursue the matter before the Director General, who had to hear it and pass a speaking order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent authority is still to determine eligibility and the affected party has an effective opportunity to respond, writ interference is inappropriate and the party must first place its objections before that authority, which must decide the matter by a reasoned order after hearing it.

---