KRISHNA AND CO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the petitioners learned counsel as well as the learned Government Advocate on merits. The learned Government Advocate to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

(2.) WE do not propose to deal with either the facts or the merits of the case because of the fact that after hearing the learned Advocates on both sides, we are of the view that it is necessary to remand the proceedings to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for the reasons set out. We need to clarify that at the admission stage itself, this petition was heard for some time by the earlier bench. Pursuant to the change of assignment, the present Bench has reheard the learned advocates on both sides once again on merits. Since this petition was only for admission, the rule of this case being part heard, does not strictly apply. In any case, no prejudice has been caused to either of the parties.

(3.) THE two-fold reasons canvassed before us was to the effect that in the first instance, since there are references to the intelligence reports wherein some adverse material/observations were obviously contained that the petitioner requested for a copy of the same. In so far as according to the learned advocate, it was necessary for them to deal with that material and secondly to overcome whatever bias that report might have caused. This is not a secret or any confidential document. It is a routine report filed by the inspecting authority and in this background, we are of the view that the copy of the same ought to have been made available to the petitioners when they asked for it. The non-furnishing of the copy in question is alleged to have created certain prejudice to the petitioners. We have not really examined the question as to whether the prejudice was real or imaginary but the fact remains that the rules of natural justice would require that all material on which the department places reliance is made available to the affected party and to this extent therefore, we direct that a copy of the report in question be made available to the petitioners prior to the arguments being reheard. The learned Government advocate submitted that this is a case in which the intelligence report was totally irrelevant because the petitioners have themselves accepted the position that the stock statements were in-correct ; that they have asked for compounding and they have even paid the damages. A statement was made at the Bar that this was done under duress and that it will not preclude the petitioners from challenging the orders passed against them. Since the petitioners have decided to appeal, in our considered view, they are entitled to a fair procedure irrespective of whether they had a case on merits or not.