2013 (10) TMI 184 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses Writ Petition challenging liquor license cancellation; emphasizes statutory appeal process

The court dismissed the Writ Petition seeking to quash the cancellation of a liquor license under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. It held that the petitioner ... Availability of alternative remedy - writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - appeal to the Excise Commissioner under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 - revision by the State Government under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 - cancellation of licence under Section 34(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 read with Rule 18(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Foreign Liquor (Excluding Beer and Wine) Rules, 2001Availability of alternative remedy - appeal to the Excise Commissioner under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 - revision by the State Government under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 - writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Entitlement to relief in writ jurisdiction where statutory appeals and revision are available against cancellation of licence. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and noted that orders passed by the Collector are appealable to the Excise Commissioner under sub section (1) and are subject to revision by the State Government under sub section (2). The second proviso to sub section (2) requires that an application for revision will not be entertained unless the appeal, where it lies, has been filed and disposed of by the Excise Commissioner. In the present case the licence was cancelled by the Collector by order dated 3rd November, 2012. Since the statute provides an alternative remedy in the form of appeal to the Excise Commissioner and a further remedy of revision to the State Government, the Court concluded that the petitioner ought to be relegated to those remedies. Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the statutory scheme, the Court held that exercise of writ jurisdiction was not appropriate and declined to interfere.Writ petition dismissed on the ground that effective alternative statutory remedies of appeal and revision are available and the petitioner is relegated to those remedies.Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging cancellation of the licence is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to pursue appeal before the Excise Commissioner and, if necessary, revision before the State Government under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. 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.