9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court is of the opinion that in the present cases, there has been violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioners had no opportunity to defend themselves. Regarding alternate remedy available to petitioners - Held that:- alternative remedy is only a rule of prudence and not a statutory prohibition. It is settled law that when there is violation of principles of natural justice, a writ petition is certainly maintainable as held by the SC in In Whirlpool Corpn. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] - matter remanded back. - W.P.(C) 7159/2012, W.P.(C) 7160/2012 & CM APPL. 18485/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2014 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Mathur with M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finds that though respondent no. 2 was aware as far back as 17th July, 2000 about the new address of petitioners (as is apparent from the summons issued to the petitioners by respondent no. 2 itself), yet on 20th August, 2002, it issued show cause notices to the petitioners at their old address. It is pertinent to mention that at the old address, the petitioners were not served and the service report states that they are no longer residing there. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that in the present cases, there has been violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioners had no opportunity to defend themselves. 6. This Court also finds that there is no merit in the argument that present writ petitions are barred by d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 20. Much water has since flown under the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that present writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
