MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. P.S.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General, waives service of rule.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 9/13.10.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 confirming the Order-in-Original dated 20.10.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the order passed by the respondent No.1 is contrary to principles of natural justice and violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) This Court has issued notice on 3.12.2009. Pursuant to the notice Mr. P.S.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General, has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Mrs. Sangita Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.1 without hearing the petitioner. The hearing was fixed on 15.9.2009. On behalf of the petitioner the responsible officer Mr.S.Nag, Senior Manager - Excise went to the office of the respondent No.1 on 15.9.2009 for the purpose of making personal representation. As per the requirements of the office of respondent No.1, the petitioner was required to obtain a visitor pass from the Reception Officer. The petitioner's representative Mr.Nag obtained the gate pass for the purpose of visiting the office of respondent No.1 on 15.9.2009 which also makes reference to the name of Shri V.K.Srivastava, the Officer who was to conduct the proceedings. She has further submitted that having been issued the pass, the officer of the petitioner Mr.Nag visited the office of respondent No.1 at about 4.10 p.m. The hearing was scheduled at 4.15 p.m. When approached, the officer of the petitioner was advised to sit in the visiting room as Mr.Srivastava was busy in some meeting. The representative of the petitioner Mr.Nag waited upto 6.15 p.m. in the said visiting room. During intervals, the petitioner's officer Mr.Nag kept on enquiring from the Secretary to Mr.Srivastava about the hearing. The Secretary kept on informing the officer to wait for some more time. At 6.15 p.m. When the officer of the petitioner lastly inquired, he was informed that Mr.Srivastava is not available. The Officer of the petitioner thereafter left the premises and came back to Ahmedabad. She has further submitted that without giving any further opportunity the impugned order straightway came to be passed on 13.10.2009. She has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence it is required to be quashed and set aside.