Supreme Court affirms license cancellation due to lack of evidence, upholding alternative statutory remedies.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to uphold the cancellation of the appellant's license for dealing in High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil. The Court rejected the appellant's claims of political motivation and malice, finding them unsupported by evidence. The dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court was upheld, emphasizing the availability of alternative statutory remedies for the appellant to address his concerns regarding the license cancellation. The Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for resolving disputed factual issues, deferring to the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority for such determinations.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of license cancellation, Allegations of malice, Dismissal of writ petition summarily, Disputed questions of fact in writ petition

Validity of license cancellation:
The appellant's license for dealing in High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil was cancelled by the Licensing Authority due to alleged violations. The appellant challenged this cancellation through writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant had an alternative remedy. The appellant argued that the cancellation was politically motivated and mala fide, pointing to repeated raids on his establishment. However, the High Court found the allegations of malice vague and unsupported by evidence. The appellant contended that the show cause notice and FIR had discrepancies. The High Court upheld the license cancellation, emphasizing that the appellant could raise his contentions before the authorities under the relevant order.

Allegations of malice:
The appellant alleged political vendetta and malice by a Cabinet Minister, claiming the proceedings were initiated due to political rivalry. The High Court found the allegations of malice vague and lacking supporting evidence. The court emphasized that malice of fact must be pleaded and proved, distinguishing it from malice in law. The appellant's contentions regarding malice were considered by the High Court, which concluded that the appellant could address these issues through the statutory authorities under the relevant order.

Dismissal of writ petition summarily:
The appellant's writ petition challenging the license cancellation was dismissed summarily by the High Court, citing the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. The appellant argued that the mere existence of an alternative remedy should not bar a writ petition when an order is passed without jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court held that in this case, no jurisdictional error was established, and the High Court's decision to not entertain the writ petition was justified.

Disputed questions of fact in writ petition:
The appellant raised disputed questions of fact in the writ petition, including discrepancies in the quantity of diesel oil found during raids and the allegations made by the authorities. The Supreme Court noted that writ petitions are not typically meant to resolve disputed questions of fact. The Court emphasized that the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority were responsible for evaluating the evidence and determining the validity of the license cancellation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition, stating that it was not a case where the writ jurisdiction should be exercised.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and emphasizing that the appellant could address his grievances through the statutory authorities under the relevant order.

---