Rectification remedy under section 154 was sufficient, so interference with the High Court's refusal of writ relief was declined.

Interference with the High Court's refusal to grant writ relief was unwarranted because the petitioner had been left free to seek rectification under section 154. The availability of that statutory remedy was treated as sufficient for correction in accordance with law, so no ground was found to disturb the High Court's approach. The challenge was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the High Court's order declining to grant relief in the writ petition and reserving liberty to seek rectification under section 154.

Analysis: The High Court had already noted that the petitioner could pursue rectification under section 154, and the Court found no good reason to interfere with that view. The availability of the rectification remedy was treated as sufficient for the petitioner to seek appropriate correction in accordance with law.

Conclusion: No interference was called for, and the petitioner's challenge was rejected.

---