ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 13.06.2024, passed by respondent No. 1, the Appellate Authority-Commissioner of Excise in the Sate of Karnataka and the consequential order of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise dated 05.07.2024. 2. Heard Sri G.K. Bhat, learned senior counsel along with Smt. Sudha D. learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Radha Ramaswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Mohan Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is said to be the holder of CL-9 license that having been granted in favour of the petitioner long time ago. The story in the petition would commence from an application being made by the petitioner on 19.01.2024, invoking Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, for shifting of the bar and restaurant to another place. The application is considered favourably by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise in terms of his order dated 29.01.2024. 4. This is called in question by respondent No. 3 who had sought to file an appeal against the petitioner for shifting of the business from one place to another. The appellate authority-the Commissioner of Excise by an order dated 13.06.2024 allows the appeal in part, and remits the matter back to the hands of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-respondent No. 3 herein. Pursuant to the said order, two events happen as the license was coming to an end at the financial year and the impugned order emerges on 05.07.2024, by which the Deputy Commissioner of Excise implements the order of the appellate authority. The order of the Deputy Commissioner closed the business of the petitioner. It is therefore, the petitioner has now rushed to this Court in the subject petition. 5. Sri G.K. Bhat, learned senior counsel would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to submit that the petitioner was not heard by the appellate authority and there is no flaw in the order granting to shift the business in favour of the petitioner. He would further contend that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise could not have closed the business of the petitioner when the license that was subsisting, was renewed at his own hands. He would further contend that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise could not have closed the business of the petitioner when the license that was subsisting, was renewed at his own hands. He would submit that the orders are contrary to law and should be annulled. 6. Sri Mohan Bhat, learned counsel for the caveator - respondent No. 3 would submit that the petitioner was issued a notice by the appellate authority. The notice is appended as Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections. It is his submission that despite of receipt of notice, the petitioner chose not to appear before the appellate authority. Therefore, the appellate authority was right in passing the order impugned in the subject petition. He would further take this Court through a communication of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise at the time of renewal of license, which narrates that the appeal, so filed and the appeal being remitted to the hands of the Deputy Commissioner for further consideration. This according to the learned counsel is knowledge enough for it to be in compliance with the principles of natural justice. He would further contend that this Court could not entertain the writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has alternative statutory efficacy remedy of filing an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would seek to dismiss the petition. 7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would toe the lines of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in defending the order of the Commissioner of Excise that though notice is issued to the petitioner has failed to appear before the Commissioner of Excise for which the Commissioner has passed the order, which according to the learned counsel is assailable. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 9. The issue lies on a narrow compass. It would be whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before the passage of the order, which now resulted in gross detriment to him. To which, the afore-narrated facts are required to be reiterated, to bring in a link in the chain of events. The petitioner is a CL-9 license holder for ages. It would be whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before the passage of the order, which now resulted in gross detriment to him. To which, the afore-narrated facts are required to be reiterated, to bring in a link in the chain of events. The petitioner is a CL-9 license holder for ages. The issue springs from an application filed by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, on 19.01.2024. Ten days thereafter, this is favourably considered and the order of shifting of business from ‘A’ to ‘B’ place is granted. The order reads as follows: Respondent No. 3 files an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, before the Excise Commissioner. The Commissioner of Excise sets aside the order dated 29.01.2024, which had permitted to shift the business of the petitioner, in answer to the application filed under Section 23 of the of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. The order of the appellate authority-Commissioner of Excise reads as follows: “ORDER The Appeal is partly allowed. The Impugned Order bearing No. EXE/IML/Honnali/CL-9/07/2023- 24, dated: 29.01.2024, issued by the 1st Respondent is set aside. The Appeal is remanded back to the 1st Respondent to pass appropriate Orders in accordance with Law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and to all concerned parties. Typed to my dictation. Typed, script corrected, edited and pronounced in open Court on 13.06.2024. Place: Bengaluru Date: 13.06.2024 Sd/- EXCISE COMMISSIONER” (Emphasis added) The issue in the lis forms events that have happened in the interregnum. As observed, respondent No. 3 prefers an appeal on 21.03.2024. The matter was taken up by the Excise Commissioner on 30.03.2024 and the matter was directed to be listed on 18.04.2024, while so directing, a notice was issued to the stake holders, the stake holder in the case at hand was the petitioner. The notice so issued reads as follows: The matter was directed to be listed on 18.04.2024 for filing of statement of objections and also securing the records. The notice so issued reads as follows: The matter was directed to be listed on 18.04.2024 for filing of statement of objections and also securing the records. The order sheet is appended to the petition, what has happened on 18.04.2024, is as follows: “The Appeal is presented on 21-03-2024 against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Davangere District, Davangere bearing No. [OTHER LANGUAGE] 9/07/2023-24, dated 29-01-2024 and the order reads as under: The appellant is seeking to call for records, allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 29-01-2024 passed by the Respondent. Stay Application for Interim relief: Learned Counsel for Appellant along with Appeal Memo has submitted application seeking interim relief to stay the Impugned Order No. [OTHER LANGUAGE] 9/07/2023-24, dated: 29-01-2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1 ORDERS 18/4/2024 Case called. Sri MB, learned counsel for the appellant submits arguments as does DCE- Davangere, is pessent vide VC. Sri M.B. filed memo including notification of PWD dtd 31/3/2022 of the SH & NH passing through Honnali town. Heard both sides. Matter is posted for orders.” (Emphasis added) The appellate authority records that the counsel for respondent No. 3 is present, his arguments are heard. The arguments of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise who appeared through video conferencing is also heard. There is no mention whether the petitioner had received the notice and has not chosen to appear before the authority, as also the fact of not filing his statement of objections or any other circumstance that has happened. The order insofar as the petitioner is concerned, depicts sphinx-like silence. Therefore, the petitioner undoubtedly has not been heard while the appellate authority passes the order. The order of the appellate authority, if it had remained as to what it is, it would have been altogether, a different circumstance. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise now passes an order, which is also impugned in the subject petition, which directs closing of the business of the petitioner. The order of the Deputy Commissioner reads as follows: “....................... “The Appeal is partly allowed. The Impugned Order bearing No. EXE/IML/Honnali/CL-9/07/2023-24, dated 29.01.2024, issued by the 1st Respondent is set aside. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise now passes an order, which is also impugned in the subject petition, which directs closing of the business of the petitioner. The order of the Deputy Commissioner reads as follows: “....................... “The Appeal is partly allowed. The Impugned Order bearing No. EXE/IML/Honnali/CL-9/07/2023-24, dated 29.01.2024, issued by the 1st Respondent is set aside. The Appeal is remanded back to the 1st Respondent to pass appropriate Orders in accordance with Law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and to all concerned parties.” (Emphasis added) The business of the petitioner is closed, the license is not cancelled as it stood renewed as latest on 27.06.2024. Therefore, in the teeth of subsistence of license, the business is closed, the two cannot run hand in hand. It is besides the point that the petitioner knowing what was happening before the appellate authority and what undertaking he has given while seeking renewal of license. Even then, in the considered view of the Court, it would not suffice compliance with the tenets of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner could not have been non-suited, without at the outset giving an opportunity of hearing. As the petitioner today has lost his business, it would thus, ensue civil and economic consequences, such orders could not have been passed without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority and all subsequent acts would become nullity in law, as it is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Sri Mohan Bhat, submits that the writ petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has an alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy before the Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal, against the order passed by the appellate authority. As observed hereinabove, if the order of the appellate authority had been in compliance with the principles of natural justice and had remained as an order, without a consequential action, this Court would have directed the petitioner to approach the appellate tribunal. As all consequential action has already happened and the petitioner has lost his business, pursuant to a proceedings in which, he was not heard, this Court would not shut its doors for the petitioner, challenging an order passed in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. As all consequential action has already happened and the petitioner has lost his business, pursuant to a proceedings in which, he was not heard, this Court would not shut its doors for the petitioner, challenging an order passed in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 is distinguishable without much ado, as much water has flown after 2003. The Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of H.P. 2021 SCC Online SC 334 has enunciated the postulates for entertaining of the writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, despite there being an alternative efficacious statutory remedy. The Apex Court has held as follows: “27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution. (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” (Emphasis supplied) One such circumstance exists in the case at hand, as the entire proceedings impugned is in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. In the light of the preceding analysis, I have no hesitation to hold that the proceedings before the appellate authority, is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the petition merits entertainment and the entertainment of the petition, leads to the unsustainability of the order impugned in the subject petition. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER: (a) The writ petition is allowed. (b) The orders dated 13.06.2024, passed by the appellate authority-Commissioner of Excise and the sequential action dated 05.07.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise implementing the order of the appellate authority, also stands quashed. (c) The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (d) Since both the parties are represented by the learned counsel, I direct them to appear before the appellate authority on 25.07.2024 at 3.00 p.m., before the Commissioner of Excise-appellate authority without receipt of any notice from the appellate authority. (e) The appellate authority shall consider the matter and dispose the same within an outer limit of six weeks from 25.07.2024. (f) All other contentions on the merit of the case, remains open. Ordered accordingly.