Natural justice breach and non-speaking cancellation order justified writ interference despite an available appellate remedy.

A cancellation order passed without notice, opportunity of hearing, or recorded reasons was treated as ex facie non-speaking and violative of natural justice. The High Court held that such a defect falls within recognised exceptions to the alternative remedy rule, so writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remained available despite an appellate remedy. The cancellation order was quashed, while the respondents were left free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting a hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation order was liable to be quashed for want of notice, opportunity of hearing and reasons, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The impugned cancellation order was found to be ex facie non-speaking, unsupported by any reason, and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, the case fell within the recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was quashed. The petitioner succeeded, and the respondents were left free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without reasons is amenable to writ interference notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy.

---