Premature writ challenge to controlled-substance classification rejected where factual inquiry and statutory adjudication were required.

A writ challenge to a show-cause notice under the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013 was held premature where classification of the product under Schedule-B depended on factual inquiry into its composition and the role of MEK. The Court noted that the rival contentions raised arguable issues that could not be conclusively decided at the notice stage. It also emphasised that, since the Order operates through the statutory adjudicatory process and no exceptional circumstance was shown, the petitioner had to first respond to the notice before the competent authority rather than invoke writ jurisdiction to bypass that process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice and seeking a declaration that the petitioner's product was not covered by Schedule-B of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013 could be entertained in view of the need for factual inquiry and the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies.

Analysis: The question whether the petitioner's product fell within Schedule-B under the 2013 Order depended on factual examination of the product's composition and the nature of MEK in the product. The Court found that the rival contentions raised arguable issues that could not be finally resolved at the stage of a challenge to the show-cause notice. Since the 2013 Order was made under Section 9-A of the NDPS Act, and Clause 10 regulates export of Schedule-B controlled substances through the Narcotics Commissioner's NOC process, the dispute required the petitioner to respond before the statutory authority. No exceptional circumstance was made out to depart from the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used to short-circuit a pending adjudicatory process, particularly when the alleged lack of jurisdiction was not absolutely apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy of replying to the show-cause notice and facing the adjudication proceedings.

---