S HEDAYATULLAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent dated 16-4-1977. The petitioner is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of beedies and cheroots in the name and style of'messrs. Speed Lever Beedi Company'. He has obtained a licence in respect of five warehouses in different streets in Trivellore in which he was stocking beedi, tobacco and cheroot tobacco. There was an usual annual stock taking by the Central Excise officials on 3-9-1961 , in all these five warehouses. Two of the Inspectors of the Excise Department attached to the Collector's office at Madras again inspected the warehouses on 15-10-1961 , 16-10-1961 and 17-10-1961 , and checked the stock and continued the same till 21-10-1961. The stocks verified during these inspections from 15-10-1961 to 21-10-1961 were weighed and weighment sheets were prepared on each day and the signature of the petitioner was obtained in each one of these weighment sheets. Finding that there was a large deficiency in the stock and beedi, tobacco and cheroot tobacco were not stored in an orderly manner as required by the Rules, but were found fixed together, the Department issued a show cause notice on 31-10-1962, requiring the petitioner to show cause why two separate penalties should not be imposed on the petitioner under Rule s 223 and 223a of the Central Excise rules, 1944, and why the duty on the deficiencies should not be demanded under rule 223a of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner submitted his objections on 8-11-1962, in which he contended that the verification of stock between 15-10- 1961 and 21-10- 1961 amounted to special stock taking, as the usual annual stock taking had already been done on 3-9-1961, that for such special stock taking, the previous instructions of the Collector on being satisfied about the need for such special stock taking should have been issued to the Inspectors concerned, that no such order of the Collector for the said special stock taking was ever issued by the Collector and that even the method of stock taking and the weighments shown in the weighment sheets were not correct. While this enquiry was pending, it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against one Inspector, who was not the Officer, who took the special stock-taking and another Deputy Superintendent in regard to certain dereliction in duty and non-compliance with the Rule s relating to the checking of the petitioner's warehouse prior to the annual inspection and in regard to those Departmental enquiries, the two Inspectors, who took the special stock taking, were also examined. The petitioner wanted copies of statements of these two Inspectors to be made available to him in connection with the enquiry of deficit stocks and mixing of stock charged against the petitioner. But the enquiry officer refused to make available copies of these statements on the ground that the Department did not propose to rely on the said depositions in respect of the charges against the petitioner. Against this refusal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector, but without success. In fact, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no appeal against non-supply of copies of depositions. Thereafter the petitioner filed W. P. 971 of 1968 in this court praying for quashing of the rejection order and for directing the department to supply copies of the said statements. The writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner referred W. A. 189 of 1968. While dismissing the writ appeal also even at the stage of the admission, the learned Judges made the following observations :- "learned Counsel for the writ petitioner strenuously contends that his client is the best Judge of how far these statements will aid him in his defence, and that when hebona fidefeels that copies of the statements will assist his defence, it is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice to deny him the simple relief of the grant of copies. We think it is sufficient to observe that there is much to be said for this view as if, the enquiry ultimately resulted in a finding or findings adverse to the writ petitioner, the departmental authorities obviously will not desire that the proceedings themselves could be impugned as vitiated by a failure to observe principles of natural justice. For this reason, we think that the departmental authorities will do well to reconsider the question of the grant of these copies. " *

(2.) THEREAFTER the enquiry in respect of the findings under sections 223 and 233a was proceeded with by the Department and after hearing the petitioner by an order dated 19-11-1970 it was held that the petitioner had committed gross breach of Rules 223 and 223a and imposed a duty of Rs. 61201. 46 and penalty of Rs. 750. It may be mentioned that during the enquiry, though copies of the statements given by the two Inspectors in the departmental enquiry were not furnished, the enquiring authority offered the two Inspectors, for cross-examination by the petitioner, if he so desired and the petitioner had also cross-examined them. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 23-7-1975 and a further revision to the Government of India was also dismissed on 16-4-1977. It is at this stage that the present writ petition has been filed.