ORDER A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company' incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing Pasta Foods as particularised in para 2 of the petition covered under Chapter Heading No. 19.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act'). This activity is carried on in the factory situated at Salamatpur, District Raisen (MP). The respondents acquired the knowledge from Intelligence that the petitioner was engaged in clandestine removal of Pasta foods put up in unit containers falling under sub-heading 1902.10 under the guise of Pasta Foods as bulk in loose falling under sub-heading 1902.90 with intention to evade the payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty. The Unit was, therefore, inspected on 17.10.1992 and 19.1.1993. On the linchpin of the inspection and discovery of factual position, the respondent No. 2 (The Collector) issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 31.3.1993 (Annexure P/8). The petitioner maintained that their products fell under sub-heading No. 1902.90 and not under 1902.10 of schedule to the Act. Aggrieved by the incorrect classification and issuance of the aforesaid show cause notice on that basis (Annexure P/8), the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the show cause notice. 3. On 9.6.1993, it was directed that no action on Annexure: P/8 shall be taken. 4. I have heard both the sides. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition is filed only against show cause notice. According to him, the petitioner should have submitted proper reply to the show cause notice and contested the matter before appropriate Authority. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was not justified in filing this petition against show cause notice. The counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the Order dated 27.1.1995 passed by this Court in M.P. No. 2230/93-1995 (57) ECR 572 (MP) Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector, Customs and submitted that this petition also deserves to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate reply to the aforesaid show cause notice impugned in this petition. 6. Mr. Justice Frnakfurter enunciated the rule in Vitarette v. Seaton (1959) 359 US 535 : 3 L. Ed. 6. Mr. Justice Frnakfurter enunciated the rule in Vitarette v. Seaton (1959) 359 US 535 : 3 L. Ed. 2d 1012 in the following terms: An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged....He that takes the procedural sword Shall perish with the Sword. 7. "Show Cause Notices" are not the end, but beginning of the matter, ''Absence of jurisdiction" and "erroneous exercise of jurisdiction" are not liable to be intermixed. It is not suggested that notice is not under the relevant Act or Provision or not by the proper authority. Writ Court, these days, is receiving matters which can appropriately be contested at other forums fixed by relevant Acts. Is it not the time, ripe indeed, to exercise restraint, halt rush and push such cases towards their proper destination? The calendar of Court is quite congested. Should the Writ Court then be not more strict to prevent inflow of cases which can be examined elsewhere and possibly with specific expertise? 8. In (State of U.P. and Anr. v. Labh Chand) the Apex Court fittingly illumined the path as under: When a Statutory Forum or Tribunal is specially created by a statute for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is a legal position which is too well settled. 9. The Counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy me as to how the matter could not be appropriately contested before the appropriate Authority. 10. In the circumstances, I find that the aforesaid objection raised on behalf of the respondents should be permitted to prevail. 11. In the circumstances, I dispose of this petition with the directions as under: (a) The aforesaid show cause notice (Annex. P/8) is not quashed but the petitioner is granted liberty to show cause and submit reply to the appropriate Authority within a period of one month from today. The petitioner shall be free to take all pleas and objections as are available under the law. (b) The Appropriate Authority shall consider the cause and reply and take appropriate decision as early as possible, in conformity it with law, under intimation to the petitioner, by reasoned order. The petitioner shall be free to take all pleas and objections as are available under the law. (b) The Appropriate Authority shall consider the cause and reply and take appropriate decision as early as possible, in conformity it with law, under intimation to the petitioner, by reasoned order. (c) If the order turns out to be adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be free to pursue appropriate remedy in that behalf. 12. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of finally without any order as to costs.