JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Mitra, J.: Heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. In the present case, the appellant is the writ petitioner, challenged in the writ application a notice being Annexure 'C' to the writ application, whereby, he was asked to show cause as to why the tenancy of Subhash Deep Colonisation Multipurpose Society Ltd. should not come to an end under Section 151(1) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 as it was reported by the Tahasildar, Port Blair that the trustees of the said Society had not utilised the disputed land fully for the purpose for which it was given to the Society, thereby causing permanent injury to the land, besides illegal transaction made by the trustees in violation of the statute, inter alia. on the grounds of arbitrariness, illegality, vagueness, etc. the learned Trial Judge, however, had dismissed the writ application ex parte on 25th March, 1995, holding inter alia, that the same was premature and the appellant/petitioner could not come to writ Court in a short out manner by circuitous way by overlapping the stage as contemplated under Regulation No. 28. Against the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 3. It is contended by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that the learned Trial Judge had acted illegally in dismissing the writ application on the ground of existence of alternative remedy under the statute, without considering at all the settled principle of law, the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to challenge an order or notice in a writ Court, if it is found that the impugned order or notice is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, perverse and passed and/or issued without applying the mind by the authority concerned. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Mukherjee has also contended that the notice challenging in the writ application, being Annexure 'C' to the writ application, which is also included in the Paper Book prepared in connection with the present appeal, being the notice at page 21 of the Paper Book, is ex facie illegal having been issued by the authority concerned without applying its mind at all, inasmuch as, the disputed land as mentioned in the notice was not a bare land at all hut was land with structure standing thereon, which was also subsequently taken by the Indian Navy on rental basis, which tenancy is still continuing, and as such, the question of using the land for purpose other than the purpose for which the said land was originally settled with the trustee from whom the appellant/petitioner obtained the same by way of transfer, did not arise at all. 5. Mr. Mukherjee has further contended that though in the impugned notice, allegation of violation of tenancy and/or settlement agreement between the Society and the Island Administration had been referred to, no notice appeared to have been served upon the Society at all, and only the writ petitioner was asked to show cause by the authority concerned to give reply to the allegations contained in the said notice regarding which the appellant/writ petitioner had no knowledge at all, and the authority concerned, without proceeding against the society, proceeded only against the writ petitioner, when admittedly, there was no privity of contract between the appellant/writ petitioner and the Island Administration and according to Mr. Mukherjee. such fact would clearly prove that there was total non-application of mind by the authority concerned in issuing the impugned notice. 6. Lastly, Mr. Mukherjee adds to submit that though his client namely, toe appellant/writ petitioner had got the disputed property from the Society concerned as far back as in the year 1969, the respondents concerned, after about 22 years thereafter, raised allegations against the Society and the appellant/writ petitioner in the impugned notice which would clearly show that the entire act of the respondents concerned was arbitrary and whimsical. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Island Administration, however, contends inter alia, that since the mutation made in the name of the appellant/writ petitioner, after his alleged acquisition of the disputed property from the Society was subsequently cancelled, which was also confirmed in the Proceeding initiated by the appellant/writ petitioner under the statute and since the revisional application moved before the Hon'ble High Court against such order of cancellation was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant/writ petitioner, the appellant/writ petitioner must be held to be an unauthorised occupant of the property in question, and the Island Administration who is the owner of all the lands in the Andaman & Nicobar Island, can very well issue the impugned notice asking the writ petitioner to show-cause as to why he should not evict from the disputed property. According to Mr. Roy, therefore, there is nothing illegality in the impugned notice. 8. True, ordinarily writ Court should not interfere in a matter when alternative remedies under the statute are there against the misdeeds of the respondents as alleged in the writ petition, but it is well settled, that existence of alternative remedy under the statute is not always and absolute bar in moving the writ Court, if the impugned order and/or notice as challenged in the writ application is ex facie illegal or without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary or has been passed. 9. So far as the present cage is concerned, we are of the view that there is much substance in the contentions raised by Mr. Mukherjee. 10. In the present case, the tenancy of the disputed land admittedly, was taken by the Society from the Island Administration and as such, the notice should have been given to the Society itself for the alleged violation of the lease term as mentioned therein and also for the illegal transaction as alleged in this impugned notice, but from the records it does not appear that any such notice was given to the Society or any action was taken against it for the misdeeds committed by the Society as alleged in the impugned notice. From the impugned notice, it does not appear even that any copy of the notice was sent to the Society. From the impugned notice, it does not appear even that any copy of the notice was sent to the Society. However, the appellant/writ petitioner appears to have been made the scape goat by the Island Administration in the matter and he was asked to show cause to the allegations contained in the notice in respect of which he had no knowledge, when admittedly, there was no privity of contract between the appellant/writ petitioner and the Island Administration. The appellant/writ petitioner was a transferee from the Society. The Society could take action against him for violating the terms and condition of such transfer but not by the Island Administration de horse the Society. 11. Secondly, it appears that though the alleged transfer by the Society in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner had taken place as far back as in the year 1969 for about 22 years or so, the appellant/writ petitioner was allowed to hold and/or enjoy the disputed property without any, objection raised by the Island Administration and after about 22 years the Island Administration appears to have woke up from its slumber for the first time and has asked the appellant/writ petitioner to show cause why be should not be evicted from the disputed property, as the Island Administration alleged that the trustees to the said Society had violated the statutory provisions of law. Even if Mr. Roy's contention is to be accepted that the Island Administration had started to proceed against the writ petitioner/appellant in 1986 by cancelling the mutation made in his favour, still then 1986 is quite a long time after the date of acquisition of the disputed property by the writ petitioner/appellant in 1969, and such long absence on the part of the Island Administration obviously raises a legal presumption that such acquisition was accepted by the Island Administration and/or there was at least a tacit consent on the part of the said Administration in favour of the writ petitioner/appellant, in the matter. 12. The above facts are therefore, quite sufficient for us to hold that the impugned notice is ex facie bad and illegal and issued by the authority concerned without applying its mind at all, but quite arbitrarily and/or whimsically and as such there is perversity writ large on the said notice and hence the same cannot be sustained in law. 13. The above facts are therefore, quite sufficient for us to hold that the impugned notice is ex facie bad and illegal and issued by the authority concerned without applying its mind at all, but quite arbitrarily and/or whimsically and as such there is perversity writ large on the said notice and hence the same cannot be sustained in law. 13. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned trial Judge and the appeal is accordingly, allowed to the extent as indicated above without any order as to cost. 14. The writ application is also disposed of by consent of the parties as follows :–– The impugned notice challenged in the writ application dated 31st January, 1991 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman, being Annexure 'C' to the writ application, also stands quashed for the reasons as aforesaid. We, however, make it clear that the order will not prevent the Island Administration from taking appropriate, actions against the Society in accordance with law concerning the disputed property for any violation of any statutory provisions of law. Kundu, J.: I agree.