S. K. Kapur, J. ( 1 ) SIXTY bags of tobacco dustweighing 79 maunds 20 seers were deposited by the petitioner in hisprivate landed warehouse vide warehouse entry No. 15/56 dated 2 3/05/1956. It appears that subsequently a representative sample wasdrawn from the said lot No. 15 and on analysis by Chemical Examinerfound to contain 73. 4 per cent ash and 32. 8 per cent tobacco. Fromthis the Central Excise authorities deduce that the consignment originally warehoused was substituted by an equal quantity of adulterated inferior tobacco without payment of duty. A notice was consequently issuedto the petitioner on 2 8/01/1961, requiring him to show causewhy the initial demand of an amount of Rs. 3263. 98 np. originally madeunder rule 160 of the Central Excise, 1944, be not confirmed. The petitioner by letter dated 9th February, Rules 1961, requested the Assistantcollector, Central Excise Division, Ambala, to make certain records available to him for inspection to enable him to file reply to the show causenotice. One of the items, the inspection whereof was sought, related toan application of the petitioner for destruction of the lot originally warehoused. The petitioner by the same letter also asked the Assistant Collector to inform him about "the basis and material on which the Department rely and which establishes the allegation of substitution againstme". A reply was sent by Shri Darshan Singh, Superintendent, dated13th/ 22/03/1961, in which it was stated- " (I) In this connection please refer to an extract from the Che-mical Examiner s test report already attached with the show causenotice, issued to you. Since on the chemical analysis the per centageof tobacco in this case has been reported to be very low, the substitution of tobacco is confirmed. (ii) It is for the licensee to prove as to how the percentage oftobacco has been found very low and what are the causes for suchlow percentage when the tobacco of the same quality has shown highpercentage as compared with the tobacco lot, in question". It was also pointed out in the said letter that no application for destruction as referred to by the petitioner was available on the record of theoffice and it was not known whether the petitioner had ever applied forthe destruction of the tobacco. It was also pointed out in the said letter that no application for destruction as referred to by the petitioner was available on the record of theoffice and it was not known whether the petitioner had ever applied forthe destruction of the tobacco. The petitioner replied to the said letterand while dealing with (ii) above stated- "you seem to have compared the percentage of tabacco of thelot in dispute with some other tobacco of the same quality. Thecomparative report and test results have not been communicated toand shown to me to enable me to meet the charge. The point ofonus will be dealt with in a regular reply". Referring to the application for destruction the petitioner stated in thesaid letter- "the proof of the application for destruction is supported by theremarks of the Inspector (Mr. Kakkar) dated 4/12/1958, onthe relevant register. The sample collected and the said applicationmust be on your record. Kindly make sure that the application isnot misplaced in your office and let me know. "the petitioner also requested the Superintendent, Central Excise, tosupply him with one s. t of samples drawn in the year 1058. The saidletter was replied to on 12/05/1961, and the Superintendent, Centralexcise, required the petitioner to give him the number and date of hisapplication for destruction. While referring to the petitioner s demandfor one set of samples previously drawn the Superintendent wrote- "as regards para 4 of your letter I do; not understand bydemanding a copy of the sampl. s drawn last. I may add that a samplein this case has been drawn from the tobacoo quite recently and rather more authoritative then any samples if drawn previously. "i may point out here that one of the grievances of the petitioner isthat if earlier samples and/or the reports of their analysis had been madeavailable to the petitioner he would have been able to show that thecontents of these samples were precisely the same as revealed by thechemical Examiner s report thereby fully, answering the Revenue s caseof substitution. By letter dated 22/05/1961, the petitioner requested for an opportunity to cross examine the Chemical Examiner andalso informed the Superintendent Central Excise-- THE application for destruction was personally collected bymr. K. M. Kakar the then Inspector, alongwith the stockcards on4-12-1958 vide his endorsement of this fact on W. R. G. 2 Part I register". By letter dated 22/05/1961, the petitioner requested for an opportunity to cross examine the Chemical Examiner andalso informed the Superintendent Central Excise-- THE application for destruction was personally collected bymr. K. M. Kakar the then Inspector, alongwith the stockcards on4-12-1958 vide his endorsement of this fact on W. R. G. 2 Part I register". The Superintendent, Central Excise, did not supply the petitioner witheither the copy of the application for destruction or the orders thereon,if any, but instead proceeded, to pass final orders without any reply ofthe petitioner to the. show cause notice. By the said order dated 5/10/1961, the Superintendent came to the conclusion that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of rule 151 (c) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and thus rendered himself liable to penal action. He, therefore, imposed on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 100. 00 andalso ordered confiscation of 79 manunds 20 seers of tobacco under thesaid rule. he, however, gave the petitioner an option to get the goodsreleased on payment of a fine of Rs. 75. 00 in lieu of confiscation in addition to the basic and additional excise duty at the appropriate rate. This duty coms to Rs. 3263. 98 np. The petitioner filed an appealwhich was rejected by the. Collector of Central, Excise, Delhi, by hisorder dated 17/04/1962, on the ground that the petitioner had failled to deposit the Government dues, demanded in the order under appeal. Ths petitioner s revision to the Central Government was also rejected on 26/12/1962, by a Summary order. Aggrieved by thesaid orders, ths petitioner filed the present writ petition. ( 2 ) ONE of the objections taken by Mr. Shankar, the learnedcounsel tor the respondents,. is that the petitioner has failed to availhimself of the alternate remedy. and the petition should, therefore, berejected on this short ground. His argument is that the petitioner should have deposited the amount of penalty and duty so that his appealcould be disposed of on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner,on the other hand, argued that the, petitioner is a poor man and couldnot afford to pay the amount with the"result that the alternate remedywas not adequate. ( 3 ) EXISTENCE of an altennate remedy is only one of the factors tobe taken into consideration by the Courts while deciding whether or notthey should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitation. ( 3 ) EXISTENCE of an altennate remedy is only one of the factors tobe taken into consideration by the Courts while deciding whether or notthey should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitation. It is not disputed that the existence of analternate remedy doss notbar the Jurisdiction of the Court to give relief. Having regard to thecircumstances of this case, particularly the circumstance that the decision of the Superintendent, Central Excuse, has been arrived at in violation of the demands of natural justice, I am not inclined to entertainthe preliminary objection on behalf of the respondents. It, therefore,takes me to the question whether the rules of natural Justice have beenviolated ? Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal has emphasised the following circumstances in support of his plea - (1) The non-supply of earlier samples about which I have already made a reference above. (2) In spite of supply of full particulars regarding the application for destruction the authorities concerned proceeded to decide thematter in complete disregard of that application. If that applicationhad been taken note of, the authorities may have been convinced thatthe goods originally warehoused were not marketable so that therewas no purpose behin,d substitution by the petitioner. It is not disputed by Mr. Shankar that an application for destruction was made as alleged by the petitioner. (3) Inparagraph 3 of the letter dated 28/03/1961, it hadbeen specifically stated by the petitioner that the proof of the application for destruction was supported by ths remarks of the Inspectordated 4/12/1958, on the relevant register and ths samplecollected and the said application must be on the record. Again, inparagraph 8 of the petition it is stated-It was also pointed out that application for destruction is supported by the remarks of the Inspector dated 4/12/1953 onthe relevant register and the sample collected must be on office record". The only reply to the said paragraph 8 in the reply affidavit is- "with reference to para 8 of the petition I admit tha receipt ofthe latter Annexure g from ths petitioner. "consequently, the allegations of the petitioner set out in paragraph 8 of the petition stand admitted. There was, no Justificationfor withholding that sample or the remarks which would have shownthe quality of the good? originally warehoused. (4) The petitioner was denied an opportunity, in spite of specific demand in this behalf, to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner. "consequently, the allegations of the petitioner set out in paragraph 8 of the petition stand admitted. There was, no Justificationfor withholding that sample or the remarks which would have shownthe quality of the good? originally warehoused. (4) The petitioner was denied an opportunity, in spite of specific demand in this behalf, to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner. ( 4 ) THAT the Superintendent declined to parmit the petitioner toross-examine the Chemical Examiner is not denied. In fact it is in termsrtated in the order that the party s request for the cross-examination ofhe Chemical Examiner is irrelevant and cannot be permitted. The grieance of the petitioner s learned counsel is that the entire case was founded on the report of the Chemical Examiner and if he had been examinedhe petitioner could elicit information regarding the basis of his report,when and in what condition was the sample received by him, for howmany days, where and in what condition was it kept before the actualanalysis and various other matters having important bearing on ths case. One of the fundamental rules of natural justice is that the party affected should have full and true disclosuce of the facts sought to b3 used against;him. Such disclosure is essential for wise and just application of theautority of administrative agencies. The right of hearing is a right, nomore and no less, to a hearing which is adequate to safeguard the rightsfor which such protection is afforded. It must be a hearing in substanceand not form. If such a hearing has been denied, the administrativeaction is void. No doubt the administrative agencies in holding healingsin the exercise of quasi judicial functions are not held to strict conforformity with judicial procedure required in a Court of law, yet it must be a hearing in substance confined to the points in issue. Under the requirements of a full hearing a party has the right to defend the rightinvolved, by arguments, proof and examination of witnesses where necessary. Then and then alone can it be said that the hearing has been ameaningful hearing. By denying the opportunity to examine the Chemical Examiner the light of adequate hearing has been denied and theimpugned orders, therefore, deserve to be quashed. There has beenanother breach of rules of natural justice. The respondents have admitted in their reply affidavit, as suggested by Mr. By denying the opportunity to examine the Chemical Examiner the light of adequate hearing has been denied and theimpugned orders, therefore, deserve to be quashed. There has beenanother breach of rules of natural justice. The respondents have admitted in their reply affidavit, as suggested by Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal,that an application for destruction was made ; that the Inspector maderemarks on the said application ; and that the sample was collected atthat time. If these meterials had been made available to the petitionerhe may have been in a position to meet the charge by showing that thegoods originally warehoused were no different from the goods found atthe time the last sample was drawn. I am also not uninfluenced by the fact that the authorities have proceeded to dispose of the matter in disregard of the petitioner s application for destructiin. It is, in the circumstances, not necessary to deal with other alleged violations on thepart of the authorities. I, therefore, allow the writ petition and quashthe three impugned orders with no orders as to costs. It will be, however. open to the authorities to deal with the matter afresh if they sochoose.