Judgment : (SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.) Heard Shri PR Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri TC Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SSEB (erstwhile SEBA) as well as Ms. D Musahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam. None appears for the proforma respondent upon whom service has been effected and in this regard, an affidavit for dasti service has also been filed. 2. Considering the nature of the dispute raised in this petition and also the exchange of affidavits, the present petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner is the President of the School Management Committee of Rayang Tribal High School, Jonai in the district of Dhemaji. It is averred that the School was also allotted the UDISE and SEBA Codes and the functioning of the School has been going on in the smooth manner. However, on 19.02.2024 while the HSLC examination of the State was going on, one complaint was lodged before the Jonai Police Station in the form of an FIR which was registered as Jonai PS Case No.17/2024, corresponding to GR Case No. 20/2024. In connection with the said complaint, the impugned order has been passed almost immediately thereafter cancelling the affiliation of the School in question w.e.f. 01.04.2024. 4. Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid action is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that the FIR itself was against one particular individual and without even the criminal case being brought to its logical conclusion, the affiliation of the School was cancelled within a span of 4 days from that date. He has highlighted the aspect that no opportunity of any manner was granted to the petitioner for taking the impugned action which has adverse civil consequences. The learned counsel has also submitted that irrelevant and extraneous considerations appear to have been taken while passing the impugned order and it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to issue appropriate notice asking to show cause and give adequate opportunity. 5. Per contra, Shri Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SSEB has defended the impugned order and has submitted that gross irregularities were found in the part of the School and its employees which had facilitated for unfair means in the HSLC examination of the year 2024. 5. Per contra, Shri Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SSEB has defended the impugned order and has submitted that gross irregularities were found in the part of the School and its employees which had facilitated for unfair means in the HSLC examination of the year 2024. He has submitted that strict action was required to be taken which was done by passing of the impugned order. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that Regulation 23 of the Regulation on Permission and Recognition of Schools of the Board, 2016 (Regulation) holding the field also provides for preferring an appeal by the aggrieved person and without exhausting such remedy, the present writ petition has been filed which is liable to be dismissed. For ready reference, the Regulation 23 is quoted hereinbelow: “23. APPEAL: Any Institution/ School H.M aggrieved with any order passed by authorized Officer of the Board in connection with recognition or de- recognition or refusal to give permission to open classes as specified in the Regulation shall approach the Board in the form of appeal within 2 months from the date of passing the order. The Board's decision shall be final in this regard.” 6. The rival submissions have been duly considered. It is not in dispute that the impugned order is an outcome of the police case lodged 4 days before the impugned order. The complaint was lodged against a particular individual alleging malpractice in the ongoing HSLC examination and it is on record that the said criminal case has not been brought to its logical conclusion. It has also been informed that the accused persons are on bail. 7. Without even going to the aforesaid aspect and the veracity and correctness of the allegation, it is seen that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the concerned School and the connected officials. 8. Shri Chutia, learned Standing Counsel is correct in pointing out that there is a provision of appeal which has not been exhausted. However, the said contention would not hold good in the present case as admittedly, that there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In the landmark case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. 8. Shri Chutia, learned Standing Counsel is correct in pointing out that there is a provision of appeal which has not been exhausted. However, the said contention would not hold good in the present case as admittedly, that there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In the landmark case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the aspect of availability of alternative remedy has clearly laid down that such availability would not be a bar to invoke the writ jurisdiction if there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. For ready reference, the relevant observation is extracted hereinbelow: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. By the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensics whirlpool, we would rely or some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” 10. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensics whirlpool, we would rely or some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” 10. In view of the aforesaid position of law and also the undisputed fact that no opportunity of any nature was given to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order, the same is interfered with and set aside. It is, however, made clear that the present order would not be a bar for the respondents to take action in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.