Natural justice and alternative remedy principles: Tribunal order quashed for reliance on unseen material and remitted for rehearing.

A writ petition was held maintainable despite an alternative-remedy objection because the challenge concerned the Tribunal's procedure, not the merits, and the delay in the matter supported judicial review. The Tribunal's order was set aside for breach of natural justice: it relied on a Chemical Examiner's note not previously put to the petitioner and on a prior decision without giving an opportunity to address comparability. The matter was remitted for rehearing after a proper chance to contest the material and the basis of the earlier decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the objection that an appeal lay to the Supreme Court or that an alternative remedy was available. (ii) Whether the Tribunal's order was vitiated for breach of natural justice in relying on the Chemical Examiner's note and on a prior decision without giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet those grounds.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the objection that an appeal lay to the Supreme Court or that an alternative remedy was available.

Analysis: The challenge before the Court was not to the merits of classification, but to the Tribunal's procedure in deciding the appeal without affording fair opportunity on the material relied upon. In that situation, the existence of a possible statutory remedy did not justify rejection of the writ petition, especially where the matter had remained pending for a long period.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's order was vitiated for breach of natural justice in relying on the Chemical Examiner's note and on a prior decision without giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet those grounds.

Analysis: The Chemical Examiner's note relied upon by the Tribunal was not shown to have formed part of the material earlier considered by the departmental authorities, and the petitioner was not specifically alerted to it. The Tribunal also rested its conclusion on a decision in another matter without hearing the petitioner on the question whether that case was comparable. The denial of an opportunity to contest both grounds amounted to a failure to follow fair procedure.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was vitiated for violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was quashed and the matter was sent back for rehearing after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to contest the material and to meet the basis of the earlier decision.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory order is liable to be set aside where it is founded on material not specifically put to the affected party and where the party is denied a fair opportunity to meet the grounds on which the decision rests.

---