Judgment

V.R. KRISHNA IYER :- The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Petitioner, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, complains that the Order of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is a wrong exercise of its jurisdiction because there is an alternative statutory remedy under the Central Excise Act for relief when goods are seized. It is correct to say that the High Court must have regard to the well established principles for the exercise of its writ jurisdiction and unless it is satisfied that the normal statutory remedy is likely to be too dilatory or difficult to give reasonably quick relief, it should be loath to act under Art. 226. May be, in exceptional cases - the present one does not appear to be one - that extraordinary power may be exercised. So it is right to point out that the High Courts will be careful to be extremely circumspect in granting these reliefs especially during the pendency of criminal investigations. The investigation of a criminal offence is a very sensitive phase where the investigating authority has to collect evidence from all odd corners and anything that is likely to thwart its course may inhibit the interests of just