Natural justice and remand compliance can justify writ relief despite an alternative remedy when cross-examination is denied.

Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative statutory remedy where the impugned adjudication is alleged to breach natural justice. The text also notes that an order passed in disregard of remand directions, without properly considering the assessee's material, and after refusing cross-examination of the Chief Chemist and an effective personal hearing, is vitiated. The operative effect is that a fresh adjudication is required with disclosure of the adverse report, proper reference to the Chief Chemist, and a meaningful opportunity of cross-examination and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the impugned adjudication was alleged to be in breach of natural justice. (ii) Whether the adjudication order was liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the remand directions and denial of cross-examination and personal hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the impugned adjudication was alleged to be in breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is taken in violation of the principles of natural justice or in defiance of fundamental judicial procedure. The record showed a specific request for cross-examination of the Chief Chemist and a request for a further hearing, both of which were not effectively addressed before the final adjudication.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order was liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the remand directions and denial of cross-examination and personal hearing.

Analysis: The earlier remand directions required the conflicting laboratory reports, together with the assessee's defence and supporting material, to be considered by the Chief Chemist and, thereafter, a fresh decision to be taken after granting a proper hearing. The communication sent to the Chief Chemist did not reflect those directions in full, the assessee's supporting reports were not properly taken into account, and the request to cross-examine the Chief Chemist was refused. The final order was passed without extending an effective opportunity to meet the adverse report or to be heard.

Conclusion: The adjudication order suffered from breach of natural justice and non-compliance with the remand directions and was therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper reference to the Chief Chemist, disclosure of the report to the assessee, and an opportunity for cross-examination and personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: When an adjudicating authority acts contrary to binding remand directions and decides the matter on the basis of an adverse expert report without affording an effective opportunity of cross-examination and hearing, the order is vitiated by breach of natural justice and writ jurisdiction may be invoked notwithstanding an alternative remedy.

---