M/s.Surya Teja Bar and Restaurant, Arasavilli Road, Srikakulam v. The District Collector & District Magistrate, Srikakulam, Srikakulam Dist
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Srikakulam, rep.by its Proprietor Boyina Ganesh. AND The District Collector & District Magistrate, Srikakulam, Srikakulam Dist. ..... PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the respondent in R.C.No.564/2004/B1, dated 24-10-2004 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust improper and violation of sec.20(1) of the Excise Act and Art 19(1)(g) of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Against the impugned order dated 24.10.2004, there is an alternative remedy is available under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968. Without exhausting the said alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, while granting leave to the petitioner to work out appropriate remedy as available under the Statute, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To:
The District Collector & District Magistrate, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District
Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad
Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Oct 2004. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.