Allahabad High Court
ANSAR AHMAD @ ANSARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A petition invoking Article 226 is barred where an efficacious alternative statutory appeal under Section 72(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act is available.
Summary
The petitioners, Ansar Ahmad, challenged an order dated 22 September 2025 passed under Section 72 of the Uttar Pradesh (United Provinces) Excise Act, 1910. They sought relief by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents argued that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 72(7) of the same Act. The Court held that because a statutory appeal was available, the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the petitioners were free to pursue the statutory appeal. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is barred from invoking Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 72(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act is available
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh (United Provinces) Excise Act, 1910 — s. 72, 72(7)
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ Petition
- Excise Act
- Alternative Remedy
- Statutory Appeal
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2414 of 2026
Ansar Ahmad @ Ansar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Subedar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Undeniably, against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed under Section 72
of the Uttar Pradesh (United Provinces) Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of
appeal under Section 72(7) of the Act.
2. In view of such preliminary objection raised by learned Standing Counsel
that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of appeal, interference
claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. However,
it is left open to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedy in accordance
with law.
3. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
May 5, 2026
Abhilash
Digitally signed by :-
ABHILASH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…