2013 (10) TMI 184 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of Writ Petition Availability of Alternate Remedy Licences for Retail Sale of Foreign Liquor (Excluding Beer and Wine) Rules, 2001, has been cancelled. - Held that - A perusal of the Section 11 shows that against the orders passed by the Collector, Appeal lies to the Excise Commissioner under sub-section (1) of the said Section - It is thus, evident that against the Order dated 3rd November, 2012, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing Appeal before the Excise Commissioner and thereafter a further remedy of filing Revision before the State Government - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present case - it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 - The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, and the same is dismissed on the said ground Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of licence under U.P. Excise Act, 1910.
2. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910.
3. Entertainment of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the existence of an alternative remedy.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking the quashing of an Order dated 3rd November, 2012, which cancelled their licence for retail sale of Foreign Liquor under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and relevant rules. The impugned Order was issued by the Collector/Licensing Authority, exercising powers under Section 34(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 read with Rule 18(2) of the relevant rules. The petitioner contested the cancellation of the licence through the Writ Petition.

2. The respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, which allows for an Appeal to the Excise Commissioner against such orders. The respondent argued that the existence of an alternative remedy barred the petitioner from seeking relief through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, however, argued that the availability of an alternative remedy should not prevent the court from entertaining the Writ Petition.

3. Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 provides for Appeals and revisions against orders passed under the Act. Sub-section (1) allows for Appeals to the Excise Commissioner, while sub-section (2) grants revision powers to the State Government. The provisions specify the timelines and conditions for filing Appeals and Applications for revision. The court noted that the petitioner could appeal to the Excise Commissioner and subsequently seek revision from the State Government as per the statutory provisions.

4. After considering the arguments and examining the legal provisions, the court concluded that the petitioner should utilize the available alternative remedy provided under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. Given the nature of the case and the availability of statutory appeal and revision mechanisms, the court decided to dismiss the Writ Petition on the grounds of the existence of an alternative remedy. The court emphasized that the petitioner should follow the prescribed appeal process rather than seeking relief through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.