Cross-examination and natural justice claims did not justify writ interference where an alternate appellate remedy was available

Cross-examination is a facet of natural justice, but it is not an absolute right and its availability depends on the facts of the case. Alleged denial of personal hearing raised disputed questions of fact, which are ordinarily not examined in writ jurisdiction. Because an efficacious alternate appellate remedy was available, judicial restraint was appropriate and interference with the writ court's discretion was not warranted. The challenge to the writ court's order therefore failed, and the appellant was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal should be interfered with on the grounds that refusal of cross-examination and alleged denial of personal hearing violated principles of natural justice, and whether the existence of an alternate appellate remedy justified non-interference.

Analysis: Cross-examination is a facet of natural justice, but there is no absolute right to it and its availability depends on the facts of the case. The claim regarding denial of personal hearing involved disputed questions of fact. Such disputed factual questions are ordinarily not examined in writ jurisdiction. Where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, judicial restraint is warranted in entertaining the writ petition, and interference with the learned Judge's exercise of discretion is not called for.

Conclusion: The challenge to the writ court's order failed, and non-interference with the dismissal of the writ petition was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, and the impugned order of the writ court was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Cross-examination is not an absolute right in every adjudication, and where the dispute involves factual controversy with an available alternate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to overturn the adjudicating authority's order.

---