Clerical misdescription in excise order did not justify writ relief where the challenge was belated and unsupported by proof.

A writ petitioner could not secure relief by relying on a clerical misdescription in an excise order where the proceedings had throughout been directed against him as the licensee. The High Court treated the mention of the petitioner's father's name as an accidental typing error and found no proof that the father was the licensee. It also noted that the challenge was highly belated and reaffirmed that Article 226 relief is discretionary and equitable, so a litigant cannot invoke a mere technical mistake after long delay to obtain relief. The petition was therefore unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could succeed on the basis that the impugned excise order mistakenly mentioned the petitioner's father instead of the petitioner, and whether relief should be granted in view of the long delay and the petitioner's conduct.

Analysis: The proceedings were found to have been directed throughout against the petitioner as the licensee, and the reference to his father's name in the communicated order was treated as an accidental typing error. The petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that his father was the licensee. The Court also treated the challenge as highly belated and held that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable, so a litigant cannot insist on relief while seeking to take advantage of a mere technical mistake after a long lapse of time.

Conclusion: The petitioner's challenge failed, and no relief was granted on the basis of the typing error or the alleged misdescription of the licensee.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, a petitioner who is the person proceeded against cannot obtain relief merely by relying on an accidental clerical misdescription in the order, especially where the challenge is stale and unsupported by proof.

---