M. Katju, Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ. - (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: The State Government may either suo motu or on an application by an aggrieved person call for and examine the records relating to any order passed in any proceeding under this Act, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any such orders or as to the regularity of such proceedings and, If in any case it appears to the State Government that such order or proceeding should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no order adversely affecting any party shall be passed under this section unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his representation. A perusal of this provision shows that the State Government may examine the record relating to any order passed in any proceeding under this Act, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any such order and may thereafter modify, annul, reverse or remit such order for reconsideration of such order.
(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.;