Nurebdra Krishna Mitra, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) In the present case, the appellant is the writ petitioner, challenged in the writ application a notice being Annexure 'C' to the writ application, whereby, he was asked to show cause as to why the tenancy of Subhasb Deep Colonisation Multipurpose Society Ltd. should not come to an end under Section 151(1) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 as it was reported by the Tahasildar, Port Blair that the trustees of the said Society bad not utilised the disputed land fully for the purpose for which it was given to the Society, thereby causing permanent injury to the land, besides illegal transaction made by the trustees in violation of the statute, inter alia, on the grounds of arbitrariness, illegality, vagueness, etc. The learned Trial Judge, however, bad dismissed the writ application ex parte on 25th March, 1995, holding inter alia, that the same was premature and the appellant/petitioner could not come to writ Court in a short out manner by circuitous way by overlapping the stage as contemplated under Regulation No. 28. Against the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that the learned Trial Judge had acted illegally in dismissing the writ application on the ground of existence of alternative remedy under the statute, without considering at all the settled principle of law, the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to challenge an order or notice in a writ Court, if it is found that the impugned order or notice is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, perverse and passed and/or issued without applying the mind by the authority concerned.;