AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 171 wordsSatya Poot Mehrotra and Anjani Kumar Mishra, JJ.—Heard Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 5.12.2012 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), 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 said order dated 5.12.2012.
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.