Daniel and Samuel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. of Cus., Thoothukudi

T. Raja, J.—This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Daniel and Samuel Logistics Private Limited, Thoothukudi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 30-3-2015 in F. No. S2/24/2010-CHA and quash the same. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Aravindan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

After hearing both parties, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, this Court allowed writ petition, setting aside the impugned order.

As the learned counsel for the petitioner has also pleaded before this Court that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and without issuing any show cause notice and without holding any enquiry, the principles laid down in A.M. Ahamed and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, will squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is relevant to extract the ratio laid down by this Court in the decision cited supra, which runs as follows:

On consideration, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order of prohibition is a final order passed by the authority not vested any power to exercise of jurisdiction under Regulation 22.

It is now well-settled law that even administrative orders which affects the rights of a party can be passed only by following the principles of natural justice. That order under Regulation 21 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice on the face of it is arbitrary and thus not sustainable in law.

The writ petition accordingly is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to pass fresh order in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The same principle is reiterated in Shipping and Clearing (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, and it is relevant to extract the ratio laid down, which runs as follows:

The Apex Court in the case of Uma Nath Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, held that violation of principles of natural justice is opposed to the fair adjudication and conscience. The party should be made aware of the allegations made against him which may result into a penal order and any infraction shall entail the action liable to be struck down for violation of principles of natural justice. It would be apt to quote paragraph 19 of the said judgment:-

"19. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice."

Since the order impugned is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and the allegations as indicated in the impugned order does not appear to this Court to be so emergent and exceptional where the order of prohibition is inevitable.

This Court, therefore, finds that the said order suffers for violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 30-3-2015 in F. No. S2/24/2010-CHA is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents to consider the matter afresh after giving show cause notice to the petitioner, after following the dictum laid down in the decisions cited supra and after affording on opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.