Natural justice and appellate remedy principles limit writ interference where documents were not relied upon and appeal remained effective.

Refusal to supply documents before adjudication was treated as non-fatal where the materials were not relied upon in the show-cause notices, the party had a personal hearing, and written explanations were filed; on those facts, natural justice was not breached for writ intervention. The availability of an appeal also did not make the statutory remedy illusory, because the appellate authority could examine the matter on merits, call for records, and give a post-decisional opportunity even without remand power. As the challenge to the adjudication order failed, the consequential detention order also could not be separately disturbed in writ proceedings, leaving the appellate remedy to be pursued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal to furnish the requested documents before adjudication violated the principles of natural justice. (ii) Whether the availability of an appeal rendered the writ petition untenable on the ground that the appellate remedy was an empty formality. (iii) Whether the consequential detention order could survive if the adjudication order was not liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether refusal to furnish the requested documents before adjudication violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The documents sought were considered by the adjudicating authority to be neither relied upon in the show-cause notices nor relevant to the issue under examination. The petitioner had been given an opportunity of personal hearing and had also submitted written explanations. The Court held that the challenge on natural justice grounds could not succeed in writ jurisdiction on these facts, particularly when the petitioner could pursue the grievance in appeal and seek consideration of the documents there.

Conclusion: The alleged denial of documents did not establish a violation of natural justice warranting interference under Article 226.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appeal rendered the writ petition untenable on the ground that the appellate remedy was an empty formality.

Analysis: The Court noted that the first appellate authority, though not empowered to remand the matter for fresh consideration, could still examine the case on merits, call for relevant records, and afford a post-decisional opportunity. The absence of remand power did not make the appeal futile. Accordingly, the petitioner could not bypass the statutory remedy merely by alleging that the appeal would be an empty formality.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the plea that the appellate remedy was ineffective or illusory.

Issue (iii): Whether the consequential detention order could survive if the adjudication order was not liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: Since the challenge to the adjudication order failed on the grounds urged, the consequential detention order also could not be independently assailed in the writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the consequential detention order also failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and upheld the impugned orders, leaving the petitioner to work out the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not interfere for alleged non-supply of documents where the party has been heard and an efficacious appellate remedy remains available, and the absence of remand power in appeal does not by itself render that remedy an empty formality.

---