IMPORTANT POINTS
Writ Courts normally do not entertain pure questions of fact.
Writ petition with vague allegations of malice of fact should not be entertained.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 4.2.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 5255 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the validity of a judgment and order dated 9.1.2008 has been dismissed.

3. Appellant was a dealer in High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil. Business in the said commodity is governed by the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (for short, "1981 Order"). The said 1981 Order has been framed in terms of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Appellant was granted a licence for dealing in the said commodities in terms of the said 1981 Order on or about 1.4.1990, which was renewed till 31.3.2010. Indisputably, on the premise that he had violated the terms and conditions of the said licence, the Licensing Authority by reason of an order dated 22.6.2002 cancelled the said licence.

Appellant preferred a writ petition thereagainst in the High court. By an interim order dated 9.7.2002, the operation of the order dated 22.6.2002 was stayed. During pendency of the said writ petition, the order of cancellation of licence was confirmed by the District Magistrate on 28.3.2003. Another writ petition came to be filed by the appellant on 7.4.2003 in the High Court and the said order dated 28.3.2003 passed by the District Magistrate was also stayed.

Indisputably, again on 24.10.2007 and 8.11.2007, raids were conducted on the appellants establishment by the Weights and Measures Department, Lucknow and Food Cell of Office of Additional Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. In the said raid, 3178 liters of High Speed Diesel Oil were found to be in excess. A show cause notice was issued on or about 13.11.2007 asking the appellant to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled. A First Information Report (FIR) was also lodged on 14.11.2007 purporting to be for violation of Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as also the provisions of the 1981 Order.

Appellant filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition for quashing the FIR lodged against him. In the said proceedings, the High Court stayed the order of his arrest.

The District Supply Officer by his order dated 9.1.2008 cancelled the licence of the appellant. Questioning the said order, appellant filed a writ petition inter alia on the premise that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were different from those made in the FIR insofar as the notice did not specify that any sale through unauthorized persons had taken place.

By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court opining that the appellant has an alternative remedy.

4. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the very fact that the appellants establishment had repeatedly been raided by way of political vengeance for which he had to move the High Court again and again is itself a pointer to the fact that the entire proceeding against him was mala fide having been initiated at the instance of the Minister who was a political rival as the appellant had fought an election against him. Learned counsel would contend that the existence of alternate statutory remedy by itself cannot be a ground for dismissing a writ petition summarily as it is well known that when an order is passed without jurisdiction, existence of alternative remedy would not be a bar for maintaining the same.

5. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, would support the impugned judgment.

6. It is no doubt true that the appellant in his writ petition has made out a