Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or investigation into factual irregularities.

The petitioner, a partnership firm and LPG distributor, was inspected by the respondent on 04.09.2014, leading to a report citing five discrepancies

Following a show-cause notice, an order was passed on 01.04.2016 imposing a penalty of ₹1,38,373/- (20% of average monthly commission) for failure to provide rebates on home delivery of cylinders

The petitioner contended that the rebate was paid but failed to reflect in cash memos due to the respondent's faulty software

An appeal against the penalty was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 02.08.2016

The petitioner subsequently approached the High Court under Article 226, challenging these orders as arbitrary and seeking their quashment

1. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can adjudicate upon the legality of evidence or specific factual irregularities regarding administrative penalties

2. Whether the impugned orders dated 01.04.2016 and 02.08.2016 were arbitrary and illegal due to the non-consideration of documentary evidence

The court primarily considered the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It followed the established principle that writ jurisdiction is not an appellate forum for re-evaluating evidence or factual findings of administrative authorities

The matter also referenced Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) regarding arbitrary state action and the right to practice a profession, alongside the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation and Supply Distribution) Order, 1993

The Court examined the petitioner’s contention that the respondent failed to consider evidence proving the rebate was paid and reflected in account books despite the software error

However, the Court determined that determining the legality or sufficiency of the evidence produced before the respondent authority—or assessing whether specific irregularities occurred—falls outside the scope of writ jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that it cannot delve into such minute factual details or act as a fact-finding body when the administrative process, including an appeal, has already been concluded

Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference with the impugned orders

However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent authority supported by relevant facts and documentary evidence

The respondent was directed to consider such representation in accordance with the law after providing an opportunity for a hearing

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs