CCPA Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Penalty on Britannia Over Misleading ‘100% Whole Wheat Bread’ Claim  ||  Delhi High Court Upholds SEM Notice Asking Neha Bora to Sign Peace Bond Beyond Mere Hearsay  ||  Allahabad High Court: Rape Victims Cannot Be Denied Compensation for Lack of Medical Report  ||  Kerala High Court Quashes Guideline Restricting Production of Arrested Persons After 5 PM  ||  Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal of Two in Electric Fence Death of 11-Year-Old  ||  MP High Court Allows Tree Felling for Indore Metro, Orders Phased Cutting under Expert Watch  ||  Bombay High Court Awards Rs. 5 Lakh for Illegal Arrest, Orders Action Against Police, Magistrate  ||  Bombay High Court Sets Aside FIR Against Pune College Staff Over Murud Beach Tragedy  ||  Bombay High Court Proposes Forfeiting Rehab Homes of Slum Dwellers Dumping Garbage on Roads  ||  J&K&L High Court Sets Aside Rs. 10K Cost on Senior Advocate, Says Heated Exchanges are Common    

Aggarwal Store Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (04 Oct 2023)

Court is not inclined to examine the order of Special Commissioner under Article 226 of Constitution, when alternate remedy is available

MANU/DE/6719/2023

Commercial

The Petitioner seeks to challenge the Order passed by the Special Commissioner, affirming the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner cancelling the licence granted to the Petitioner for running a Fair Price Shop (FPS) and the Order correcting the typographical errors regarding the net variation of the specific articles (SFAs) from 19.91 quintals to 199.18 quintals passed by Assistant Commissioner.

A scrutiny of the material on record discloses that the Petitioner has in fact has filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner is yet to dispose of the appeal.

In view of the fact that a remedy is provided under the Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981, this Court is not inclined to proceed ahead with the writ petition, especially, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has already availed the alternate remedy by approaching the Financial Commissioner provided under the Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981. Any observation made against the Petitioner will prejudice the case of the Petitioner in the appeal before the Financial Commissioner.

After availing the remedy under Section 6 of the Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981, it was not open to the Petitioner to avail the remedy of filing a writ petition. In view of the availability of an alternate remedy which has been availed by the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to examine the order of the Special Commissioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Financial Commissioner is directed to dispose of the appeal. Petition disposed off.

Tags : LICENCE   CANCELLATION   ALTERNATE REMEDY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved