SC: Amendments to Government Orders Must Be Construed Fairly to Prevent Hardship  ||  SC: Divorce Settlement Waiver Bars Revival of Monetary Claim under DV Act  ||  Supreme Court: Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Where Ad Valorem Court Fee Depends on Disputed Facts  ||  SC: Bail in Serious Offences like Murder Cases Must be Supported by Clear and Justifiable Reasons  ||  Gauhati HC: Legal Heir Not Made Party Can Challenge Ex-Parte Succession Certificate  ||  Allahabad HC: Hijab Not Essential Islamic Practice, Rejects Plea to Wear It With School Uniform  ||  Gauhati HC: 24-Hour Limit for Magistrate Production Starts From Initial Detention under NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC Orders Human Verification of AI-Generated Case Law in Tax Orders, Warns of Contempt  ||  Madras HC: Pending Domestic Violence Case Alone Cannot Curtail Husband’s Right to Travel Abroad  ||  Rajasthan HC: Son’s Coparcenary Claim Fails without Proof of Hindu Undivided Family    

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