Amrat Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Anjani Kumar Mishra, JJ.—On oral prayer made by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead Gaon Sabha in question as party respondent No. 3 in the writ petition as well as in the stay application. Necessary impleadment will be made during the course of the day.

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Panday, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent No. 3.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 20th May, 2013 whereby the licence of the petitioner in respect of the Fair-Price Shop in question, has been cancelled.

It is not disputed that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner concerned against the order canceling the licence of the petitioner in respect of the Fair-Price Shop in question.

In view of the availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal to the petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.