Natural justice and alternative remedy: writ jurisdiction remains open, and written hearing can satisfy cancellation requirements.

A statutory appeal under the Reserve Bank of India Act does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where breach of natural justice is alleged. A writ remains maintainable when the petitioner approaches within limitation and the alternative remedy objection is not fatal. For cancellation of registration, the statute requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing, but not necessarily an oral hearing in every case. Where the material breach is admitted, no actual prejudice is shown, and the authority considers the written reply with reasons, natural justice is satisfied; the cancellation order was therefore upheld and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was not maintainable because an appeal lay under the statute and the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy. (ii) Whether the cancellation order was vitiated by breach of natural justice for want of an oral hearing and for being non-speaking on the prayer for condonation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was not maintainable because an appeal lay under the statute and the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy.

Analysis: The statutory appeal under Section 45-IA(7) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 does not operate as an absolute bar to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ petition remains entertainable where breach of natural justice is alleged. The petitioners also approached the Court within the limitation period reckoned from receipt of the order, so the objection that they had lost the statutory remedy by their own default was rejected.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation order was vitiated by breach of natural justice for want of an oral hearing and for being non-speaking on the prayer for condonation.

Analysis: Section 45-IA(6) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before cancellation, but it does not mandate an oral hearing in every case. Consideration of a written reply can satisfy natural justice, especially where the material facts are admitted and no prejudice is shown. The petitioners admitted non-compliance with the net owned fund requirement, did not establish any de facto prejudice from absence of oral hearing, and the order considered the reply and recorded reasons for cancellation. The prayer for condonation was treated as rejected by the tenor of the order, and the order was not non-speaking on that aspect.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was not vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation of the certificate of registration failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of hearing before cancellation of registration does not invariably require an oral hearing, and where the noticee admits the material breach and shows no actual prejudice, consideration of a written reply by a reasoned order satisfies natural justice notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal.

---