VEDANTA LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has come up with these appeals challenging the interim order passed in W.P(MD)Nos.11878, 11879, 13323 and 13324 of 2015, dated 29.07.2015.

(2.) We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.

(3.) The grievance of the appellant is that the fourth respondent, who is the auditing officer, allowed the appellant to have personal hearing on 06.04.2015. But, the documents filed were voluminous, running to 10,000 pages. Therefore, within 15 minutes, it was not possible for the appellant to make his submission, during the said personal hearing. But, the Auditing Officer, namely, the fourth respondent, simply closed the file, stating that personal hearing was granted and the same was over. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order of the fourth respondent, that is how, he filed W.P(MD)No.11878, 11879, 13323 and 13324 of 2015. In the writ petitions, by means of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, directed the appellant/petitioner to appear before the authority concerned on 05.08.2015 and 14.08.2015 and to participate in the personal hearing. This direction came to be issued on the concession given by the learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from the respondents, which is found in paragraph No.3 of the order and the same reads as follows: