Short Note : 1. In the petition, the main grievance of the petitioners was that the order of the Assistant Collector did not show as to why their application was rejected. Secondly it was submitted that before rejecting the application for grant of a licence under the Gold Act, the petitioners should have been heard. 2. From the order of the Assistant Collector, it is not clear as to why the application was rejected and what were the grounds in the mind of the Assistant Collector for rejecting it. It is also not clear that before giving an adverse order against the petitioners, whether they were intimated the grounds of refusing the licence. When an order is to be passed or an application is to be rejected on certain grounds, the petitioners should have been given as opportunity to rebut them. This is according to the principles of natural justice. This Court feels that the Assistant Collector has not followed these principles of natural justice in passing his order. Against this order there was an appeal and curiously enough, the appellate Court has supplied the grounds for rejecting the petitioner's petition. This will not amount to giving the petitioners an opportunity before their application is decided against them. They could very well have said that the information given to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, is not correct, that even otherwise also they are entitled for a licence. Looking from this angle, this Court feels that the order passed by the Assistant Collector is without following the general principles of law and, therefore, it cannot be upheld. 3. Here it will be better to decide the objection which the learned counsel for the non- petitioners has raised. He submitted that because the petitioners have not exhausted all the remedies available to them under the Gold (Control) Act, therefore this Court should not issue any writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that when their appeal is rejected, the petitioners could have filed a revision before Central Government under section 82 of the Gold (Control) Act. There are so many things which would have come in the way of the petitioners in following this procedure. Firstly, this amendment in Article 226 of the Constitution was not there when their appeal was decided. The appeal was decided by the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur on 18.8.1972. There are so many things which would have come in the way of the petitioners in following this procedure. Firstly, this amendment in Article 226 of the Constitution was not there when their appeal was decided. The appeal was decided by the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur on 18.8.1972. For filing the revision, the period of limitation is six months from the date of the order. If this Court calculates these six months from the date of the order, it will be clear that 42nd Amendment of the Constitution was not there and the view of exhausting all the remedies before filing the writ was not very much strictly followed at the time by the different High Courts. The other aspect is that this writ petition was admitted by this Honourable Court for hearing on 22.1.1973. It came for final hearing on 10.2.1978. In this time also, the non-petitioners have not raised any objection that because there is an alternative remedy, therefore, the writ petition is not competent. As there is no objection in the petition also, this Court thinks that to throw out the petition on this sole ground will not be justified. There is one more aspect of the case also that the principle of exhausting all the remedies has got two well recognised exceptions. They are that where proceedings are taken before a Tribunal under a provision of law, which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court under Article 226 for issuing appropriate writ for quashing them on the ground that they are incompetent, without his being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course and second is the doctrine has no application in a case where the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. Baburam vs. Zila Parishad, AIR 1969 SC 556 , relied on Case remanded. Petition allowed.