RAJESH KUMAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of both these petitions.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand submits that against the cancellation of the licence/agreement the aggrieved party has a right to prefer an appeal and take up the matter in a revision and as the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy available to them, this Court should not interfere. On the merits, however, he is unable to controvert the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners nor was in a position to say that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not hold the field even today. So far as the preliminary objection is concerned, it is true that ordinarily the High Court would not interfere in a matter where alternative efficacious remedy is available to an aggrieved party but the said rule is not of universal application. It is the restraint imposed by the High Court on itself. The rule is not absolute. The High Court can always interfere in a matter even where the alternative remedy is available, if the High Court finds that the action taken by the authority runs contrary to the principles of natural justice, is per se bad, it violates the policies or runs contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India.