JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India has raised preliminary objection on the point of maintainability of this writ petition and has submitted that this issue should be decided before entering into the merits of the case. He submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under Section 5-A of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Section 16 (g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. He submits that there are many technical aspects in connection with environment clearance which can be appreciated by the Tribunal. 3. Upon this, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has advanced extensive argument on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that this Court may not enter into the technical aspects of the matter of environmental clearance and will confine his argument on the point of gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play while passing the order impugned in this writ petition. 4. While advancing his argument, he submits that the environmental clearance was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.02.2008 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. However, vide letter dated 06.06.2012 a show cause was issued to the petitioner by the said Ministry asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the environmental clearance dated 21.02.2008 be not revoked and certain allegations were made against the petitioner in the show cause notice. 5. After the receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner had responded and also requested for an opportunity of personal hearing vide its letter dated 20.06.2012. He submits that thereafter the matter remained pending and certain inspections were carried out by the respondents. In the meantime, another writ petition was filed by the petitioner relating to environment issues being W.P. (C) No. 1873 of 2018 and the fact about pendency of proceeding pursuant to show cause dated 06.06.2012 was brought to the notice of this court. In such circumstances, the order dated 25.08.2018 was passed to expedite the matter in connection with show cause notice dated 6.6.2012. 6. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner was required to appear before the authority for the purpose of personal hearing and accordingly a notice dated 31.08.2018 was issued to the petitioner for personal hearing. 7. By referring to paragraph nos. 6. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner was required to appear before the authority for the purpose of personal hearing and accordingly a notice dated 31.08.2018 was issued to the petitioner for personal hearing. 7. By referring to paragraph nos. 28,29 and 32 of the writ petition, the petitioner submits that on 10.09.2018 an opportunity of hearing was given before Mr. Gyanesh Bharti, the Joint, Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC). The petitioner at the outset had pointed out that the competent authority for the purpose is Secretary of the Ministry and it was contended that hearing by the Joint Secretary was wholly without jurisdiction. He submits that however the petitioner continued with hearing on 10.09.2018 which concluded on the same day. He further submits that transfer of the joint secretary who heard the matter was notified on 10.09.2018 and he was relieved on 12.09.2018 in the afternoon. Counsel submits that thereafter the impugned letter dated 20.09.2018 was communicated to the petitioner indicating that the matter has been examined by the Department and the competent authority has decided to revoke the environmental clearance which was granted to the petitioner as back as on 21.02.2008 and in the said order it was also communicated that the petitioner may apply for environmental clearance afresh after clearing all the issues. 8. The specific case of the petitioner on the point of violation of natural justice been stated in paragraph no. 31 of the writ petition wherein it has stated that hearing was done by the joint secretary on 10.09.2018 and admittedly the order was not passed by him. Further the person who had given the hearing was himself not the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. 9. He has also submitted by referring to the impugned order that certain materials which were submitted on 12.09.2018 (refers to the internal page no. 13 of the impugned order which mentions document as Annexure-XIII which is dated 12.9.18 and is contained in page 165 of the supplementary affidavit). He submits that such materials submitted after the conclusion of hearing, could not have been used by the respondent authority for passing the impugned adverse order against the petitioner. He submits that on this ground also, the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 10. He submits that such materials submitted after the conclusion of hearing, could not have been used by the respondent authority for passing the impugned adverse order against the petitioner. He submits that on this ground also, the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 10. He submits that the impugned order has serious consequences and the authority who has passed the impugned order ought to have granted the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further the documents which were filed on 12.09.18 i.e. after the date of hearing could not have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he submits that on these grounds the writ petition be entertained and after hearing the parties , the impugned order be set aside and the matter is fit to be remanded. He submits that in the mean time the impugned order be stayed so that the running industry of the petitioner may not be closed down which employs a large number of workmen. He submits that the writ petition is certainly maintainable in such circumstances, wherein there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. 11. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others , (1998) 8 SCC 1 ) paragraph no. 15; ( Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others versus Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another , (1959) AIR SC 308) paragraph no. 31; ( Commissioner of Income Tax and Others versus Chhabil Dass Agarwal , (2014) 1 SCC 603 ) paragraph no. 15 and ( Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Another , (2016) 3 SCC 643 ) paragraph no. 29. He submits that it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain the writ petition. But the High Court has self imposed restrictions, one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the High Court has self imposed restrictions, one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least in three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; or (ii) where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or (iii) where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 12. He further submits that it has been held in the judgment reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 at paragraph no. 31 that if the person is called for personal hearing and if one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. The personal hearing should be given by the person who has to pass the order. He accordingly submits that it was certainly not open to the respondents to ask the petitioner to appear before any person for personal hearing who was not competent to pass final order. 13. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that in the instant case, the Joint Secretary has acted under delegation of power and has heard the matter. He further submits that it is not necessary that the Secretary should hear all the matters and pass order although the ultimate decision has to be taken by the competent authority. The point which the petitioner has taken that certain materials have been taken into account which was collected or submitted after the date of hearing is factually incorrect. He further argues that there was nothing new in the subsequent communication and whatever materials was there, was already available in the records and the same was only made available in a consolidated form by the subsequent communication dated 12.09.2018. Counsel appearing for the Union of India has relied upon one judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore And Another versus Mathew K.C. , (2018) 3 SCC 85 ) and has referred to paragraph no. Counsel appearing for the Union of India has relied upon one judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore And Another versus Mathew K.C. , (2018) 3 SCC 85 ) and has referred to paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment and has submitted that in the matters where there are statutory remedy available, powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised. He submits that it has been consistent view of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and numerous decisions has been referred in the aforesaid judgment including the case of Satyawati Tondon , (2010) 8 SCC 110 as well as the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 . Accordingly, he concludes by saying that there has been neither any procedural violation nor there has been any violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that this court cannot enter into the technical formalities in this case therefore this writ petition should be dismissed on account of availability of alternative efficacious remedy which is available to the petitioner. 14. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the industry which is involved in this case engages a large number of workmen and at the same time any industry which has to exist under the State of Jharkhand, can be permitted to exist only in accordance with law. He also submits that there is no absolute bar regarding entertaining a writ petition by the High Court and in appropriate cases and in appropriate circumstances, power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised. He also submits that if the petitioner chooses, he can certainly apply for fresh environmental clearance and the same will be considered in accordance with law. 15. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record this court finds that apparently the Joint Secretary had given personal hearing to the petitioner on 10.09.2018 and he was transferred immediately thereafter and left his office on 12.09.2018. This court further finds that it is nobody''s case that the joint secretary is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. 16. This court further finds that it is nobody''s case that the joint secretary is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. 16. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has submitted that the joint secretary had given the opportunity of hearing by virtue of certain delegation of power and upon his report, the appropriate authority was to take final decision. He has also submitted that as per the procedure, it is not required that the person who has to pass the order, should be the same person who hears the matter. This court is of the prima-facie view on the basis of aforesaid judgment which has been cited by the petitioner reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 that person who has to pass the order is required to give personal hearing, otherwise the very purpose of giving personal hearing will be defeated. It also appears that the joint secretary heard the matter on 10.09.2018 and was himself transferred within the period of two days, thereafter the final order was passed by the Secretary of the Department. 17. In such circumstances, this court is inclined to entertain this writ petition on the limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice as has been indicated by the petitioner. So far as the judgement relied upon by the respondent reported in ( Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore And Another versus Mathew K.C. , (2018) 3 SCC 85 ) is concerned, this court finds that in para 5 of this judgement it has been held as under:- "5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. Normally this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is loath to interfere with an interim order passed in a pending proceeding before the High Court, except in special circumstances, to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions as observed in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal4, as follows: (SCC p. 611, para 15) "15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case5, Titaghur Paper Mills case6 and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." 18. As this court prima-facie finds that the impugned order in this case has been passed in total violations of principles of natural justice therefore in such circumstances this writ petition is being entertained . 19. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in the matter and the so called delegation of power which is argued by the respondents Union of India is also not on record. 20. Accordingly, two weeks time is hereby granted to the respondents to file counter-affidavit in this case confining their counter affidavit to the limited points which has been argued by the petitioner. The Union of India shall certainly ensure annexing the copy of the delegation of power which has been referred by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of India along with the counteraffidavit. 21. The Union of India shall certainly ensure annexing the copy of the delegation of power which has been referred by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of India along with the counteraffidavit. 21. This court further prima-facie finds that the impugned order has serious repercussions on the unit of the petitioner which is a running unit and has caused prejudice to the petitioner on account of violations of principles of natural justice. This court further finds that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure-19) is hereby stayed till the next date. 22. Post this case on 10.10.2018 along with W.P. (C) No. 1873 of 2018. 23. However, this order will not be an impediment for the petitioner if the petitioner chooses to apply for statutory clearance as indicated in the impugned order without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner in this writ petition. 24. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties.