Natural justice and reasoned orders justify writ relief despite alternate remedy, where hearing was illusory and replies were ignored.

An administrative or quasi-judicial order affecting civil rights must disclose reasons and afford a real opportunity of hearing; a cryptic rejection that ignores the reply and fixes hearing before the reply period expires is arbitrary and violates natural justice. The existence of a statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned orders are patently illegal, passed without effective hearing, or otherwise arbitrary. On these facts, the writ petition was maintainable, and the cancellation of registration as well as the refusal to revoke it were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory appeal remedy; (ii) Whether the orders cancelling registration and rejecting revocation were vitiated for want of reasons and for denial of a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory appeal remedy?

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order is patently illegal, arbitrary, or passed without hearing. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon for relegating the petitioner to appeal, noting that the present challenge involved defective notices, absence of effective hearing, and a non-speaking rejection order.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the orders cancelling registration and rejecting revocation were vitiated for want of reasons and for denial of a meaningful opportunity of hearing?

Analysis: A reply to a show cause notice must be considered and a rejection must contain cogent reasons. A cryptic order without dealing with the defence is arbitrary and illegal. Further, fixing the hearing date before the expiry of time granted to file a reply renders the opportunity illusory and violates natural justice. On these facts, both the cancellation notice process and the revocation rejection were found defective.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in writ jurisdiction, and the registration cancellation as well as the refusal to revoke it were annulled for breach of natural justice and absence of reasons.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative/quasi-judicial order affecting civil rights must disclose reasons and afford a real opportunity of hearing; a cryptic order passed after fixing hearing before the expiry of time to reply is arbitrary and can be quashed in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternative statutory remedy.

---