Tikaram Gupta vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Facts
The petitioner, Tikaram Gupta, has challenged an order dated 16.06.2025, which resulted in the cancellation of his licence and the confiscation of his security deposit. The State, represented by the Department of Excise and other authorities, contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. The petitioner had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition without first exhausting this statutory remedy. The State argued that the writ petition was therefore not maintainable in its current form.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable in its present form because the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. The Court reasoned that statutory remedies are designed to provide a structured and efficient mechanism for resolving disputes, and these should generally be exhausted before seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will not be entertained if an equally effective alternative remedy exists and has not been pursued. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the alternative remedy available to him under the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act? (Question of law) The petitioner's contention, implied by filing the writ petition, is that the alternative remedy is either inadequate or that the circumstances warrant direct intervention by the High Court. The respondent State's argument is that the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory appeal mechanism provided under Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act before approaching the High Court. The State relies on the principle of alternative remedy, which generally bars writ petitions when an effective and efficacious alternative is available.
Sections Cited
Rule 13
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
2025:CGHC:32003
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3525 of 2025 1 - Tikaram Gupta S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Kadam Chowk, Champa District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Excise, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner (Excise) Gst Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Janjgir Champa District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/07/2025 Chllenge in the present petition is to the order impugned dted
2 16.06.2025 whereby the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and the security deposit has been confiscated. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal under Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and witho
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.