JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd.30th June 2016 passed by the Secretary State Transport Authority, Orissa as contained in Annexure-7 and the advertisement of the petitioner’s route Puri to Kolkata in the newspaper at Sl. No.8 (Annexure-9). 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that he has been granted with permanent permit bearing No.07-G-09 by the State Transport Authority, Orissa in respect of the vehicle bearing No.OR-02-AT-5767 on the interstate route Puri to Kolkata via Bhubaneswar, Balasore, Laxmannath and back. The permit was valid from 27.11.2009 to 26.11.2014. The petitioner before expiry of the valid period of permanent permit has made an application for its renewal before the State Transport Authority, Orissa on 15.4.2011 as the permanent permit was going to expire on 26.11.2014 along with relevant document. The authority has advised to wait for sometime so that the permit can be renewed and the said advise has been communicated to the petitioner vide annexure-3, the petitioner had waited for renewal of its permit under the believe that the same will be renewed, but the authority all of a sudden and without giving any information in this regard has rejected the renewal application vide order communicated to the petitioner dtd.1.7.2016 under annexure-7, issued under the seal and signature of Asst. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack addressed in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter the authorities have come out with paper publication inviting application from intending Stage Carriage Owners for grant of permanent permit against the vacant routs so as to reach in the office of Secretary, State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack within 14 days during office hours and not later than 5 P.M. on 16.7.2016 and the reference of the route in question has been made under the heading INTERSTATE ROUTES at Sl. No.8 (Annexure-9). The petitioner being aggrieved with the rejection order under Annexure-7 and the paper publication inviting application for grant of route permit under Annexure-9 is before this court on the ground that before rejecting the application for renewal of permanent permit the requirement of statute has not been followed to the effect that no show cause notice has been issued, the petitioner has not been provided with opportunity of being heard as has been provided U/s.81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the order is non-speaking. 3. 3. The opposite parties have appeared through their counsel Mr. B.K. Sharma, who has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner has defaulted in making payment of tax liability. So far as the renewal application is concerned, the petitioner had been directed to come with relevant documents but it is due to his negligence / fault the authorities have not passed order of renewal of permit for long time, but considering the public cause and considering the attitude of the petitioner the authorities have no option but to reject the application for renewal of the permanent permit submitted by the petitioner on 15.4.2014. He further submits that the authorities after weighting for about a month has come out with the paper publication inviting application considering the public cause since the route in question was vacant and public at large were suffering. Taking into consideration this aspect fresh applications have been invited in which the petitioner is at liberty to make fresh application since he has not been deprived from applying and if the petitioner will submit his application, without being prejudiced, his application would be considered by the authority. 4. So far as the contention raised by the petitioner regarding non-observance of principle of natural justice as provided U/s.81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it has been submitted that the very provision is not applicable in the case of the petitioner since the petitioner was not plying the vehicle which is the foremost condition for attracting the provision as contained in Sec.81(4) of the M.V. Act, 1988 and as such the contention raised by the petitioner regarding not following the statutory provision as contained in Sec.81(4) has got no force. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that this court may not interfere in the matter at this stage since there is availability of alternative remedy as provided U/s.89(E) of the M.V. Act, 1988 and since there is availability of statutory appeal, hence this court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Rebutting this argument learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there is violation of principle of natural justice and as such this court may exercise its jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Rebutting this argument learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there is violation of principle of natural justice and as such this court may exercise its jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. This case was listed before this Bench on 21.7.2016 and on that date following order was passed which is being reproduced herein below:- “This case is against the order dtd.30th June 2016. The sold ground taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the order of rejection passed by the authority as contained in Annexure-7 dtd.1.7.2016 has been passed without issuance of notice. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable at this stage on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal as provided U/s.89(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that availability of alternative remedy of appeal will not come in the way in entertaining the writ petition as because there is gross violation of principle of natural justice and the renewal application in respect of the Bus bearing registration No.OR-02-AT-5767 in the interstate route Puri to Kolkata via Laxmannath has been rejected without issuing any notice. In order to examine this matter this court directs the learned counsel for opposite party to come with the record tomorrow in order to see as to whether notice has been issued before passing the rejection order (Annexure-7). Accordingly, list this case tomorrow, i.e. on 22.7.2016. It has been informed that today is the date fixed for finalization of route permit in pursuance to the applications invited as per Annexure-9 wherein the permit in question is at serial no.8 under the heading interstate routes. Learned counsel representing opposite party has submitted that he has talked with the authority and they have assured that decision will not be taken till tomorrow. Accordingly list this case tomorrow, i.e. on 22.7.2016. Let free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel representing opposite parties.” In terms of the said order learned counsel representing opposite parties has come out with the original record and he has very fairly submitted that no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Accordingly list this case tomorrow, i.e. on 22.7.2016. Let free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel representing opposite parties.” In terms of the said order learned counsel representing opposite parties has come out with the original record and he has very fairly submitted that no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel representing the opposite parties has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, since there is alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 89 of the M.V. Act, 1988 and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. There is no dispute about the fact that if there is alternative remedy of appeal, then the writ Court should not interfere but there is exception to that and that is, if the decision taken by the authority is without any jurisdiction or in violation principle of natural justice or suffers from malice, the writ Court may exercise its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vrs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . Relying upon the settled proposition as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) and considering the fact that there is violation of principle of natural justice as has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties by going through the original record that no show cause notice has been issued, hence there is violation of principle of natural justice and as such this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of alternative remedy since it is coming under the exception as per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment, hence the Court is entertaining the writ petition on this ground. 6. 6. Before answering the issue with respect to the ground taken by the petitioner regarding observation of principle of natural justice as provided U/s.81 (4) of the M.V. Act, 1988, Sec.81(4) is being reproduced herein below:- “81(4) The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the following grounds namely: (a) The financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application; (b) The applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely : (i) Plying any vehicle- (1) Without payment of tax due on such vehicle; (2) Without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle; (3) On any unauthorized route; (ii) Making unauthorized trips; Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of Clause (b) any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be taken into account : Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant.” It is evident from the said statutory provision that the Regional Transport Authority of the State Transport Authority may reject an application for renewal of a permit for one or more of the following grounds: (a) the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application; (b) The applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely : (i) Plying any vehicle- (1) Without payment of tax due on such vehicle; (2) Without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle; (3) On any unauthorized route; (ii) Making unauthorized Provided that no application under the sub-section shall be required unless an opportunity of being heard given to that effect. The condition mentioned in Sec.81(4) contains one condition that this section will be applicable in case of plying vehicle. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle of the petitioner was not plying sometimes in between the period of 2014 due to non-payment of road tax, hence the provision of Section 81(4) since contains a condition regarding providing an opportunity before rejection of the application with respect of vehicle which is a plying vehicle but this submission is not existing in this case and as such I differ with the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner since he is placing reliance upon Sec.81(4) of the Act, but simultaneously it is to be seen the fact that the petitioner has been granted permanent route permit to ply the vehicle from Puri to Kolkata and according to the petitioner it is the main source of his livelihood and as such the day when the permanent route permit has been issued, he has been accrued with a civil right and it is settled that if any civil right has been accrued to the party, the party is supposed to be given an opportunity of being heard in order to justify regarding the allegation and if the authorities is taking a decision without compliance of the said provision, it will be said to be violation of principle of natural justice. Even though there is no statutory provision in asking show cause from the party concerned even then the principle of natural justice is to be followed when it hits the civil right of the concerned party. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of A.K. Kripak and Others Vrs. Union of India and others, 1969(2) SCC 262 wherein the matter fell for consideration as to whether the principle of nature justice apply to administrative proceeding and their Lordships have been pleased to hold that since the aim of the rule of natural justice is to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice, hence the administrative authority or the quasi judicial authority is duty bound to provide an opportunity of being heard to the parties. In the case of Msr. Maneka Gandhi Vrs. In the case of Msr. Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India and Another, (1978) 1 SCC 248 in which it has been laid down as the principle of audi alteram partem, even if not specifically mentioned it may be applicable by implication. In the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vrs. Girja Shankar Pant and others, (2001) 1 SCC 182 it has been held that if the principle of natural justice will not be followed there will be lack of fairness in the procedure and as such it has been held that the doctrine natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the case of Dev Dutt Vrs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725 it has been held that rules of natural justice are not codified nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible. They may, however be summarized in one word: fairness. Originally there were said to be only two principles of natural justice : (1) rule against bias, and (2) right to be heard (audi alteram partem) but however subsequently, some more rules came to added, namely, requirement to give reasons. Natural justice has also been held to be part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. From perusal of the order of rejection it appears that the authorities have not assigned any reason and it is settled that if any order is without any reason the order will be said to be arbitrary. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M.M. Limited Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, 1994 6 SCC 594 wherein their lordships have been pleased to hold that the quasi-judicial authority while exercising their function must record reasoning for its decision irrespective of whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review and reason should be clear and explicit though may not be elaborate. This is one of the embodied rules of natural justice. Thus it is settled principle of law that an order without any reason will amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. Thus there is no dispute about the well settled proposition that a person cannot be condemned without providing an opportunity of being heard and further disclosing reason in the order is also now part of the principle of natural justice. Thus there is no dispute about the well settled proposition that a person cannot be condemned without providing an opportunity of being heard and further disclosing reason in the order is also now part of the principle of natural justice. But after the order of rejection having perused by this court the authorities have rejected it in one line without assigning any reason. Further the record which has been produced by the learned counsel for opposite parties also justify that no show cause notice has been issued, in view thereof the order cannot be said to be sustainable being in violation of principle of natural justice and as such the order dtd.30.6.2016 (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has remained silent for period of about two years and not used the vehicle hence this court is not entering into the merit of the claim of the petitioner, as such it would be desirable and in the ends of justice to remand the matter before the authority to take decision on the merit of the claim of the petitioner. In view thereof, the matter is remitted before the Secretary, State Transport Authority to pass fresh order. The parties shall abide by the following directions:- (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Secretary, State Transport Authority on 28th July, 2016 at 10.30 A.M. (ii) The Secretary, State Transport Authority without any delay will issue show cause notice by fixing date of his personal appearance for hearing. (iii) The petitioner shall appear on the date fixed along with reply of the show cause and the relevant documents, if any. (iv) The Secretary, State Transport Authority shall conclude the hearing after hearing the petitioner. The Secretary, State Transport Authority is directed to complete the entire exercise within fifteen days from the date of appearance and shall pass speaking order. Until the final decision taken, the status quo shall be maintained so far as the route in question is concerned. It is made clear that the Secretary, State Transport Authority shall follow the consequence of his decision for follow up action. Accordingly, the writ petition stand disposed of with the above observations and directions.