MAHESH NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vineet Saran, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.B. Upadhyaya, learned senior advocate as well as learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) THE Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Excise Commissioner, U.P. dated 7.2.2001, Annexure -4 to the petition. Without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act') the Petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the State Government against the impugned order. A perusal of Section 11(2) of the Act shows that it is very widely worded. Section 11(2) of the Act states as under:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order dated 7.7.2001 is infact an order of the State Government or on the direction of the State Government. We do not agree. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has himself submitted that he is not challenging any policy of the State Government. If the Petitioner is not challenging the policy of the State Government, it is difficult to understand how we can say that the Impugned order has been passed by the State Government or on the direction of the State Government. In fact it is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that the impugned order has been passed by or on the direction of the State Government. There is no such averment in the writ petition.