So far as the spot inspection of the licensee shop is concerned, admittedly the same has been carried out on 29.11.2019 in the night at 9 pm. The present case does not relate to the matter wherein on the tip of the information, the authority got an information that some blackmarketting is going on and thereafter the first information report has been lodged. Contrarily, the spot inspection of the licensee shop has admittedly been carried out at 9 pm. The said action cannot be accepted by this Court as the hours of running the license is also defined in the relevant Rules and Order, which is upto 6 pm, thereafter in case any such inspection is to be carried out, then some rational is to be made but nothing has been placed before this Court indicating that there was any grave urgency for carrying out such inspection at night. In absence of any such material, the said action cannot be accepted by this Court. So far as appeal is concerned, the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition, vide Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others 1998 (8) SCC 1 . It has been held by the Apex Court that even if an alternative statutory remedy is available it would not be a bar in maintenance of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in at least three contingencies, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. The Court has already held that it was mandatory for the authorities/officers to comply with the principles of natural justice as well as relevant Rules and Orders before suspending/cancelling the fair price shop licences/agreements. Admittedly the case of the petitioner falls under the said category.
