Alternative remedy and disputed facts bar writ interference in licence cancellation challenges absent substantiated mala fides.

A writ challenge to cancellation of a diesel dealer's licence was not entertained because the dispute turned on inspection material, stock records and calibration data, all raising disputed questions of fact fit for the statutory appellate forum. The Court noted that excess stock could constitute breach of licence conditions and that the authorities were entitled to inspect the premises. Allegations of mala fides were held to be vague and unsupported by material, so the exception to the alternative-remedy rule did not apply. On that basis, writ interference was unwarranted and the cancellation dispute had to be pursued before the prescribed authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of the licence was liable to be dismissed in view of the availability of an alternative appellate remedy and the presence of disputed questions of fact, and whether the allegations of mala fides and denial of natural justice warranted interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The licence was governed by the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegations against the dealer concerned excess stock and breach of the licensing conditions, matters that turned on factual determination from the inspection material, stock records and calibration chart. The Court held that the authorities were entitled to inspect the premises and that possession of diesel in excess of the recorded stock would amount to contravention of the licence conditions. It further held that the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact which were properly amenable to the statutory appellate forum, and that the allegations of mala fides were found to be vague and unsupported by material. The exception to the rule of alternate remedy was therefore not attracted.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation dispute was left to be pursued before the statutory authorities, and no writ interference was warranted on the facts pleaded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cancellation of a licence turns on disputed facts and the statutory scheme provides an effective appeal, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised unless a clear case of lack of jurisdiction or substantiated mala fides is made out.

---