CO-OPEATIVE DURG FACTORY Vs. NATIONAL AYUSH MISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has incorrectly held that the appellant has an alternative remedy, whereas, there is no alternative remedy to the appellant. He would submit that present is not an issue relating to claim of certain payments, but the appellant's challenge to the order of blacklisting rests on one of the main grounds that without proposing the action of blacklisting, the impugned order was passed, and therefore, it was contrary to the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70. He submits that the legal position is settled in the case of Erusian Equipment (supra) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He supports his contentions by relying on the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Private Limited & Ors. v. Food Corporation of India & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 551.

(3.) There is no representation made on behalf of the respondents.