The principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to present one's case, are fundamental requirements in quasi-judicial proceedings. Failure to comply with these principles renders the impugned order invalid and may be challenged through a writ petition, even if an alternative remedy is available.

Aniruddha Bose, J.

1. THE petitioner, whose licence for operating a fair price shop has been terminated, is before this Court seeking quashing of the order of termination. This is the second writ petition in connection with the said shop and the dispute out of which the present proceeding arises dates back to 14th June, 2007. On that date a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, requiring him to explain as to why proceeding shall not be drawn against him for violation of certain provisions of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003.1 shall refer to this Control Order as the "2003 Order" in the later part of this judgment. THE show-cause notice was issued by the Director of Rationing and it reads: "It reveals from the report of Enquiring Officers, Sri Jamini Baidya, DDR and others, that on their visit to his shop on (i) 29.5.07 at 4-30 p.m. they found the shop- closed during specified hours: (ii) on 01.6.07 at 09.55 a.m. they could not obtain books of accounts viz. A.R. Part-I, in spite of their repeated demand. Thus, he has violated the para 18(iii) and (iv)(e) and conditions of 5 and 9 of the West Bengal Urban PDS (Maintenance Control) Order, 2003. He is therefore, asked to showcause within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this letter why proceedings shall not be drawn against him under para 26 of the above said Control Order. This is urgent. Director of Rationing, West Bengal.

2. THE petitioner had responded to the notice denying the allegations. In his reply, the petitioner took a specific stand that the AR Part-I Register was not available because the same was taken by the petitioner to the headquarters to produce the same before one Jamini Kumar Baidya, Deputy Director of Rationing as per his instruction conveyed to the petitioner over telephone. THE authority of the first instance under the 2003 Order found the reply of the petitioner inadequate, and in exercise of power under 2003 Order suspended the licence of the petitioner until further order. This order was issued on 5th July, 2007. The writ petitioner appealed before the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Food and the Appellate Authority on 9th July, 2007 against the order of suspension. The petitioner, however, was given an opportunity of hearing by the Director of Rationing. On 16th July, 2007, the Director of Rationing passed an order directing continuation of the order of suspension. The petitioner approached the Director General of Food and Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department with prayer to set aside the order of the Director of Rationing passed on 12th July, 2007, or for review of the said order. This application was captioned as "Appeal". The Director General, Food and the Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, however, declined to interfere in the matter at that stage. In his order passed on 19th July, 2007, he observed:

"considering all the above aspects, I am of the opinion that unless the case is concluded and final order is passed by the competent authority, it will be prematured to take up the matter by the appellate authority. Let the final disposal of the case be made by the competent authority at an early date. Thereafter, the appellant if not satisfied, is at liberty to move the appellate authority for hearing...."

(quoted vertabim).

3. IT appears from pleadings that the Director of Rationing thereafter had examined the records, and photocopy of the Register A.R-I-Part A and the statement of Jamini Kumar Baidya dated 11th July, 2007 were supplied to the petitioner. However, so far as the proceeding against the petitioner was concerned, no progress was made. On 31st August, 2007, the petitioner again appealed before the Director General of Food for taking final decision in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, a fresh show-cause notice was issued on 25th September, 2007 against the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why his licence