PARAMOUNT KUMKUM PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. B. B. Naik, the learned Counsel waives service of Rule. In this application, the disposal of the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice is under challenge on a very short point that no personal hearing has been given before cancelling the show cause proceedings. As a result, the petitioners have suffered serious prejudice. It has been indicated in the affidavit in reply that, as a matter of fact notice was sent to the petitioners mentioning the date on which show cause proceeding will be taken up for hearing and that some one from the office of the petitioner received the same by putting the signature which will appear from the postal acknowledgement receipt. On inspection of the postal acknowledgement receipt the Officer instructing the counsel for the petitioners has indicated that none of the employees in the office of the petitioners had received the same and as a matter of fact there was no occasion to receive the communication. An affidavit of rejoinder to that effect has been filed. It also appears that, no date stamp of the post office from which the Registered cover had been sent appears on the postal acknowledgement receipt but there is a date stamp of the post office where the Registered cover was received for delivery but the date stamp is of a date which is later than the date when the person stated to have received the communication, is mentioned. It appears that the formalities required to be maintained by the postal department had not been maintained properly and it is quite doubtful whether the petitioners had actually received the same before the date of hearing. Prima facie, it appears that, no useful purpose will be served to the petitioners or the petitioners' representative by not appearing at the hearing on receipt of the communication and normally it is expected that the party should appear. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice should be better disposed of by giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated before us that the petitioners are quite anxious to appear at the hearing of the show cause proceedings and to make submissions so that such proceedings can be disposed after getting the view point of the petitioners. As in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that it is quite likely that the petitioners might not have received the communication before the date of hearing and for such non -communication, they could not appear and make submission, we dispose of this application by setting aside the order passed on the said show cause notice which is impugned in this application.

(2.) WE direct that, on 17th May 1991, a hearing should be given to the petitioners pursuant to the impugned show cause notice. It has been submitted before us by the learned counsel for the respondents that 17th May 1991 will be suitable for the concerned officer to give a hearing pursuant to the show cause notice. It is made clear that no notice for the hearing on 17th May 1991 need be given to the petitioners and the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken note of the said date so that the petitioners may appear. It is made clear that, if the petitioners do not appear on the said date, namely, on 17th May, 1991, the appropriate authority will be free to decide the show cause proceeding in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.

(3.) RULE made absolute to the above extent.