Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the District Registrar and Licencing Authority, Korba revoking the petitioner's licence for sale of stamps under Rule 27(c) of the CG Stamp Rules, 1942 (henceforth 'the Rules').

2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was granted a vendor's licence under the Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder, for the first time in the year 2006. The licence was renewed in terms of Rule 26(3)(c) of the Rules and on the date of passing of the impugned order, the renewed licence was in operation.

3. One RTI activist moved an application before the Public Information Officer, Office of District Registrar on 10.3.2014 seeking copy of stamp register maintained by the petitioner for the period 1.11.2008 to 31.12.2008. He also sought copy of entries from 9500-9700 maintained by the petitioner in her register of the year 2008-09. The Sub Registrar informed the RTI activist that the said register is not available in the office. In the appeals preferred by the RTI activist before the first Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, the appellate authority i.e. the District Registrar issued a memo to the Sub Registrar in response to which the Sub Registrar informed the Registrar vide Annexure-R/1 that despite intense search the register is not available in the office. Prior to that, the petitioner was also served a notice by the District Registrar seeking her explanation of the fact that the register maintained by her for the year 2008-09 is not available in the office of Sub Registrar. The petitioner informed the Registrar vide Annexure-P/9 that she has submitted the register maintained by her for the year 2008-09 and it is only after submission of the said register, her licence was renewed for subsequent years.

4. On receiving the reply, the Registrar passed the impugned order under Rule 27(c) of the Rules revoking licence.

5. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that proviso to Rule 27 provides for opportunity of hearing before revocation of the licence, however, no such opportunity was granted before revocation of licence, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that the District Registrar has passed the impugned order only after hearing the petitioner, therefore, it does not call for any interference. She would also submit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring revision before the Revenue Commissioner.

7. Insofar as objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy is concerned, it would be appropriate to mention that the petition is at the stage of final hearing. No such objection was raised when the petition was fixed for final hearing. Even otherwise, the petitioner is complaining violation of principles of natural justice. It is also settled that rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule wherein the Court has imposed restriction on its own jurisdiction and in appropriate cases the Court can entertain writ petition where it finds that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

8. Rule 26 of the Rules provides for grant of vendor's licence. Rule 26(3)(c) provides for renewal of licence for a period of 3 years at a time.

9. Rule 27 provides for revocation of licence. The said rule is reproduced hereunder:--

"27. Revocation of licence.- A licence may be revoked at any time by the Superintendent of Stamps, or by the authority who granted it, on the following grounds:--

(a) Breach of any stamp rule;

(b) Breach of any licence conditions;

(c) Irregularity in maintenance of records prescribed under these rules;

(d) Incapability to store sufficient stamps for sale;

(e) Any other serious irregularity:

Provided that no order under this rule shall be passed, unless the licensed vendor has been given an opportunity of being heard."

10. Proviso to Rule 27 w