Neeraj Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. It is stated that there is statutory alternative remedy to file appeal before Divisional Commissioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aligarh without application of mind and without considering the reply as it is based on office report. In support thereof, he has relied upon Paragraph No. 8 of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2016 8 ADJ 732 which is quoted hereinbelow:- "In my opinion non consideration of the petitioner's reply in respect of the charges levelled against him amounts to denial of effective opportunity of hearing which further amounts to breach of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the writ petition is being entertained in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 8 SCC 1.";