Limited intra-court review of a reasoned writ order bars interference absent clear legal infirmity or jurisdictional error.

A reasoned writ order declining interference where an alternative statutory appellate remedy was available, and where limitation and natural justice objections had been considered, was not disturbed in intra-court appeal. The appellate court held that the scope of interference at the admission stage was limited and no clear jurisdictional or legal infirmity was shown. The batch of intra-court appeals was therefore not admitted, and the Single Judge's disposal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the intra-court appeals against the reasoned order of the learned Single Judge merited admission and interference.

Analysis: The appeals arose from a common order in which the learned Single Judge had dealt with the availability of a statutory appellate remedy, the plea of limitation, and the alleged breach of natural justice in the context of notices issued under the VAT regime. The appellate Court found that the impugned order was a reasoned one, that the learned Single Judge had considered the material questions raised, and that the scope of interference in intra-court appeal was limited. On that basis, the Court declined to reopen the controversy at the admission stage.

Conclusion: The appeals were not admitted and no interference was warranted; the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment leaves the learned Single Judge's disposal undisturbed and results in dismissal of the batch of intra-court appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasoned order declining writ interference in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy will ordinarily not be interfered with in intra-court appeal unless a clear jurisdictional or legal infirmity is shown.

---