Natural justice and alternate remedy exception upheld where a successor officer decided without a fair hearing.

An order passed by a successor Additional Commissioner without the petitioner's personal hearing, and without evidence that the successor had the predecessor's hearing notes, was held to violate natural justice and constitutional fairness under Article 14. The decision-making process was therefore unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside. The existence of an alternate statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because a breach of fair hearing falls within the recognised exception to the alternate-remedy rule. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with an opportunity for written submissions and request for documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order, passed by a successor Additional Commissioner without the petitioner's personal hearing and without available hearing notes of the predecessor officer, was vitiated by breach of natural justice and constitutional fairness; (ii) Whether the availability of an alternate statutory remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction despite such violation.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order, passed by a successor Additional Commissioner without the petitioner's personal hearing and without available hearing notes of the predecessor officer, was vitiated by breach of natural justice and constitutional fairness.

Analysis: The order had been made by an officer who had not heard the petitioner, while the hearing had been conducted by a different officer of the same rank who had earlier occupied the post. The record did not establish that the successor had before him the notes of final hearing prepared by the predecessor. In such circumstances, the decision-making process was found to offend the basic requirement of a fair hearing and constitutional fairness under Article 14.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice and was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an alternate statutory remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction despite such violation.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar where the complaint is of breach of natural justice. The exception to the alternate remedy rule applies where the impugned action is taken in violation of fair hearing requirements, and the writ court may entertain the petition in such a case.

Conclusion: The alternate remedy objection was rejected and writ jurisdiction was exercised.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with an opportunity to the petitioner to place written submissions and seek supply of documents.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed without a fair personal hearing by the authority deciding the matter is vitiated by natural justice, and the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar writ intervention in such cases.

---