An efficacious statutory appeal against licence cancellation warrants the writ court’s restraint.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Sashi Kechua Khad Unit, held licences to manufacture and market vermicompost.

After departmental testing, sales were stopped on the basis of a report from the Mithapur Laboratory. The petitioner challenged that report, and samples tested by the Varanasi Laboratory were found to meet prescribed standards; the sale stoppage was then withdrawn.

Later samples again failed testing at Mithapur but conformed to standards at Varanasi. On 25 May 2017, the Director of Agriculture cancelled the petitioner’s licences.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation, alleging that the favourable Varanasi reports and other relevant material had not been considered. He also sought payment of alleged outstanding sums for supplied fertiliser and related expenses. The State objected that an appeal lay before the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department.

1. Whether the High Court should examine the merits of the licence-cancellation order in writ jurisdiction when the petitioner has an alternative appellate remedy.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claims for unpaid dues and expenses should be determined in the writ petition.

The Court applied the principle that the existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy may justify declining to examine a challenge in writ jurisdiction, leaving the aggrieved party to pursue the available remedy.

It identified an appeal before the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, as the remedy available against the Director of Agriculture’s cancellation order.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

The Court noted the competing submissions concerning the testing reports and the legality of the cancellation, but did not assess those matters on their merits.

Because the petitioner could appeal to the competent authority, the Court considered it inappropriate to determine the validity of the cancellation in the writ proceeding.

It disposed of the petition with liberty to appeal and directions concerning consideration of that appeal; it did not separately determine the claims for dues and expenses.

It granted the petitioner liberty to appeal to the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, within three months; directed that a timely appeal be considered on its merits, with any delay considered liberally in light of the petitioner’s prior approach to the Court; and required notice and an opportunity of hearing, with disposal preferably within three months of receipt of the appeal.