Judgment :- The challenge is to an order passed by the respondent dated 22.10.2009, which is a Show Cause Notice and an order of suspension of the petitioner’s Registration Certificate for an indefinite period and granting opportunity to the petitioner to show-cause within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt copy of the order as to why the Registration Certificate should not be canceled. 2. The petitioner is stated to be a partnership firm and has been granted a Registration Certificate by the respondent to act as Recruiting Agent under Sec.11 of the Emigration Act. The license was initially granted for a period of three years and stated to have been extended subsequently from time to time. Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.08.2009 granting 15 days time to the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the registration should not be canceled. This show-cause notice was based on the complaints given by three persons. Petitioner in his reply dated 28.08.2009 stated that during the holy month of Ramadhan the companies in Gulf countries work only for half a day and therefore, response is slow for the said letter. The petitioner also requested to forward the copy of the complaint which has been referred in the order of suspension. 3. According to the petitioner, the show-cause notice dated 13.08.2009 was received by them on 22.08.2009 and they have time till 07.09.2009 to submit their reply. In the same letter dated 28.8.2009 extension of time was also sought for to submit the reply. This reply dated 28.8.2009 is shown to have been received by the respondent on 31.08.2009 as evidenced by the postal acknowledgement given by the postal authorities. On 01.09.2009, an order came to be passed, wherein it has been stated that in exercise of power conferred under Section 14(1) of the Act, the respondent orders suspension of the Registration Certificate for a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the order and also calling upon the petitioner to submit their explanation as to why the Registration Certificate should not be suspended indefinitely or canceled. In paragraph 3 of the order dated 01.09.2009, it is stated that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the Show Cause Notice till 13.8.2008. 4. In paragraph 3 of the order dated 01.09.2009, it is stated that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the Show Cause Notice till 13.8.2008. 4. The petitioner on receipt of the order dated 01.9.2009 had filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.22447 of 2009 for a mandamus to furnish copies of the complaint, which are said to be the basis of order of suspension. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner sent a reply on 02.9.2009 to the original Show-Cause Notice dated 13.8.2009. This reply is shown to have been received by the respondent on 04.09.2009. However, by impugned order dated 22.10.2009, the Registration Certificate of the petitioner has been suspended for an indefinite period and calling upon him to show-cause as to why the Registration Certificate should not be cancelled. 5. Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would assail the correctness of the impugned order by stating that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without application of mind, since the petitioner’s response to the show-cause notice dated 13.08.2009 was not considered. It was further stated that the petitioner had also sought for copy of the complaint received by the respondent and also sought for extension of time. This letter has been received by the respondent on 31.8.2009. Pointing out to this fact, the learned senior counsel would submit that the finding of the respondent in order dated 01.09.2009 stating that the petitioner has not responded to the show-cause notice is factually incorrect. Similarly while passing the impugned order also, there is no reference to the reply given by the petitioner on 02.9.2009, which was received by the authority on 04.09.2009. That apart the learned senior counsel would further submit that the persons who are recruited and sent by the petitioner have not lodged any complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the order of suspension of the Registration Certificate is untenable. 6. Per contra, Mr. V. Parivallal, learned standing counsel for the Respondent Department by relying upon the counter affidavit would submit that writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 23(1)(a) of the Emigration Act, 1983. 6. Per contra, Mr. V. Parivallal, learned standing counsel for the Respondent Department by relying upon the counter affidavit would submit that writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 23(1)(a) of the Emigration Act, 1983. The learned standing counsel would further submit that the past conduct of the petitioner was not as projected by the petitioner, since petitioner has already faced three complaints. 7. As regards the factual aspect, it is pointed that based on the documents available, the petitioner had recruited the three persons, who had lodged complaint in the name of M/s. Vijay Enterprises, Mumbai and an affidavit has also been sworn to by the partner of the petitioner company and recruiting through sub-agent is in violation of Rule 10(1)(viii) of the Emigration Rules, 1983. It has been stated that the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice was received only on 28.8.2009 and therefore, the authority has issued the impugned order of suspension on 01.09.2009, since no reply or appeal has been filed by the petitioner. 8. I carefully considered the submission on either side and perused the materials available on record. First objection raised by the learned standing counsel for the Respondent Department is on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 23(1)(a) of the Emigration Act, 1983. The existence of alternative remedy cannot always be an absolute bar for exercising jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, especially when the petitioner has approached this Court pointing out that there is violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the reply dated 28.08.2009 and 02.09.2009 though admitted to have been received by the authorities, they have not been taken into consideration. It is stated that the petitioner has not availed of the opportunity provided. However, in the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that the reply sent by the petitioner to the show-cause notice has been received on 28.8.2009, but the order of suspension came to be issued on 01.09.2009. The respondent having received the reply, ought to have considered the same and could not have ignored such reply and proceeded to pass the order suspending the petitioner’s Certificate of Registration for an indefinite period. The respondent having received the reply, ought to have considered the same and could not have ignored such reply and proceeded to pass the order suspending the petitioner’s Certificate of Registration for an indefinite period. The impugned order involves civil consequences and therefore, the respondent is bound to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and every order passed by the respondent should satisfy the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned standing counsel that writ petition is not maintainable. Having held so, it would not be necessary for this Court to traverse through the various factual allegation made by the petitioner and the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent since this Court has come to a conclusion that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, it is a fit case where the matter has to be reconsidered afresh. I such circumstances, petitioner is entitled to succeed and the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 and 26.10.2009 are set aside insofar as it places the petitioner’s Registration Certificate under suspension for an indefinite period. The petitioner is entitled to submit a fresh reply to the allegations contained in the order dated 22.10.2009 and also submit their objections to the copy of the complaint furnished by the Department on 13.11.2009. The petitioner is granted two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to submit his further representation/objection. On receipt of such representation/objection, the respondent shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. It is made clear that until orders are passed afresh by the respondent, status-quo as on date of filing of the writ petition shall continue to be in force. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.