Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Deepak Thapa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2462 of 2021
Decided On : 14-12-2021
Statutory Remedy - Excise Act, 1910 - The court found that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available under Section 11(2) of the Excise Act, 1910, to file a revision before the State Government after the dismissal of the appeal filed under Section 11(1). The writ petition was dismissed with the liberty to file a revision before the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of shifting his shop location, which was dismissed in an appeal. The petitioner then approached the court for relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 11(2) of the Excise Act, 1910.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner's writ petition was maintainable in light of the statutory remedy available under the Excise Act, 1910.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 11(2) of the Excise Act, 1910, after the dismissal of the appeal filed under Section 11(1).
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with the liberty to file a revision before the State Government.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - In a public auction, petitioner was allotted license for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at Rajpur Road, Ist, Dehradun. Respondent no.6 (Bhupal Arya) was allotted similar license for Rajpur Road, IIIrd, Dehradun at Gandhi Park. Upon grant of such license, respondent no.6 was permitted to shift his shop from Gandhi Park to Opal Lounge, Opposite to Secretariat Gate.
2. Petitioner challenged order of shifting passed by District Excise Officer vide order dated 09.07.2021 by filing an appeal. Petitioner's appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2021. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders, petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection that in view of statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 11 (2) of the Excise Act, 1910, this writ petition is not maintainable.
4. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that after dismissal of an appeal filed under Section 11 (1), petitioner has remedy of filing revision before the State Government under Section 11 (2). On this ground alone, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file revision before the State Government. If petitioner files a revision on or before 20.12.2021, decision thereupon shall be taken as early as possible, but not later than six weeks.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
