HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) It is a brazen attempt on the part of the respondent authority to cancel, terminate and/or rescind the license of the petitioner in whatever possible way even exceeding the power conferred under the Control Order.
(2.) The preliminary point raised before this court at the first hearing was that the instant writ-petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order 1968 (as amended). It was further submitted before the court at the first motion that the petitioner has, in fact, admitted his guilt and, therefore, not entitled to challenge the said order before this court.
(3.) By an order dated September 15, 2016, the court prima facie found that the impugned order suffers from illegality being violative of paragraph 9(A)(v) of the said Control Order and directed the parties to exchange affidavits. Impliedly the court overruled the objection taken by the authority on the maintainability of the writ-petition and, therefore, it would not be proper to reopen such issues at the final stage of hearing. Apart from the same, this court does not find any substance in the preliminary objection for the simple reason that mere existence of an alternative remedy cannot stand as a bar in maintaining the writ-petition before the High Court. There are few exceptions; one of which is when the authority acted in clear violation of the principles of natural justice or in contravention to the provisions of law.;