The classification of drop-in fuel as a petroleum product under the Essential Commodities Act requires further examination, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Firm (writ petitioner) against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1031/2025, whereby the writ petition by the appellant (writ petitioner) against the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Additional District Collector, Nagaur under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ’Act of 1955’), has been dismissed.

2. The bone of contention in the present case is that the appellant is a dealer of drop-in fuel, and despite the same not falling under any of the Essential Commodities notified under the Act of 1955, while passing the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2024, impugned in the writ petition, the said fuel has been assumed to be a petroleum product.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, which reads as under:

“4. This Court is not inclined to enter into such dispute. There is an appeal provision under the Act to the District Judge. Such alternative remedy is also available to the petitioner.

5. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with such liberty to avail the statutory appeal provided under the Act.

6. All the grounds which have been raised before this Court are allowed to be raised before the District Judge.”

3.1. Learned counsel submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition was not called for because it was clearly averred in the writ petition that the appellant (writ petitioner) was the dealer of the drop-in fuel which do not fall under the petroleum product which one of the Essential Commodities notified under the Act of 1955 and the drop-in fuel need not be termed as petroleum product.

3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that rather than going into the critical applicability of law and making a finding as regards the drop-in fuel and its consideration as a petroleum product while amenable to the proceedings under the Act of 1955, the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has only relegated the appellant to prefer an appeal before the District Judge.

3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that Section 2A of the Act of 1955 provides for the Essential Commodities wherein it states that for the said Act, “essential commodity” means a commodity specified in the Schedule. The Schedule at S.No. (5) provides for petroleum and petroleum products, as an Essential Commodity. However, drop‐in fuel is a synthetic and fully interchangeable substitute for conventional petroleum‐derived hydrocarbons (gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel), meaning thereby that it does not require adaptation of the engine, fuel system or the fuel distribution network. Thus, as per learned counsel, drop-in fuel is a synthetic commodity and is not derived from petroleum and therefore prima facie does not fall under the definition of Petroleum Products and consequently is excluded from the definition of Essential Commodity as well.

3.4. Learned counsel has principally relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2022) 16 SCC 428, relevant portion whereof reads as under:

“20. While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available, the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. This principle has been crystallised by this Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107] Recently, in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. [Radha Kris