S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner against the Notice, contained in Order No. 199, dated February 4, 2005, issued by the 2nd respondent. Registrar of Trade Union under Section 10 (b) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as '1926 Act'), whereby and whereunder the petitioner was asked as to why its registration be not cancelled.
(2.) The petitioner has also challenged the order dated May 6, 2005 passed by the said 2nd respondent, whereby and whereunder in exercise of power under Section 10(b) of the 1 1926 Act, the petitioner's registration has been cancelled.
(3.) The learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of respondents, opposed the writ petition and raised preliminary objection, there being alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. This issue shall be discussed at appropriate stage.;