Writ jurisdiction over disputed facts refused, leaving identity theft allegations to be examined by the competent authority.

Writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked to examine disputed factual allegations underlying a show cause notice, including alleged misuse of credentials and identity theft, where resolution requires inquiry by the competent authority. The High Court declined to assess the merits of those contested claims in writ proceedings and left the investigation to the respondents. The petitioner was permitted to place material before the authorities for consideration while finalising the proceedings, and both sides' rights and contentions on merits were kept open. The writ petition was disposed of without adjudication on the disputed facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice, founded on disputed factual allegations including misuse of credentials and alleged identity theft, warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge turned on factual controversies that required inquiry by the competent authorities. The Court found itself unable to evaluate the merits of those allegations in writ proceedings and considered the investigation into the disputed matters to be beyond its scope. The petitioner was left at liberty to furnish material before the respondents for consideration while finalising the proceedings, and the rights and contentions of both sides on merits were kept open.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of without adjudication on the merits of the disputed allegations.

---