Allahabad High Court
Hriday Narayan Patel vs State Of U.P. & Others on 29 November, 2012
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Het Singh Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 61919 of 2012
Petitioner :- Hriday Narayan Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- B.P. Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,Satish Mandhyan
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the respondent no.3.
It appears that the petitioner was having licence for running Mini Rice Mill issued by the Mandi Samiti, Mungra Badshahpur, District-Jaunpur. By the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the respondent no.3, the licence of the petitioner has been suspended. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above.
We have heard Shri B.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Vibhuti Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
Shri Vibhuti Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has raised a preliminary objection that against the order of suspension, impugned in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing Appeal under Section 25 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (in short "the 1964 Adhiniyam") , and in view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, no interference is called for in the present Writ Petition.
We have considered the preliminary objection raised by Shri Vibhuti Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, and we are inclined to accept the same.
Section 17 of the 1964 Adhiniyam, in so far as is relevant, is reproduced below:
"17. Powers of the Committees.- A Committee shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the power to -
(i) issue or renew licences under this Act on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed, or, after recording reasons therefor, refuse to issue or renew any such licence;
(ii) suspend or cancel licences issued or renewed under this Act:
Provided that before cancelling a licence except on the ground of conduct which has led to the conviction of the licensee under Section 37, the Committee shall afford reasonable opportunity to him to show cause against the action proposed;
(iii) to (viii)................................................................."
It will, thus, be noticed that under clause (ii) of Section 17 of the 1964 Adhiniyam, a Committee constituted under the 1964 Adhiniyam has power to suspend or cancel licence issued or renewed under the said Act.
Section 25 of the 1964 Adhiniyam makes provision for Appeal.
Section 25 of the 1964 Adhiniyam provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by a Committee under clause (i) or clause (ii) of Section 17 may prefer an Appeal to the Board within the period mentioned in the said provision.
The petitioner, thus, has an alternative remedy of filing Appeal under Section 25 of the 1964 Adhiniyam against the order of suspension dated 31.10.2012 impugned in the present Writ Petition.
In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the order dated 31.10.2012 impugned in the present Writ Petition, we are not inclined to exercise our Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 29.11.2012
safi
