Allahabad High Court
M/S Coal Product India vs Union Of India Thru' Principal ... on 1 August, 2014
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38675 of 2014
Petitioner :- M/S Coal Product India
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru' Principal Secy. & 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- N.C. Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashutosh Tripathi,Madhur Prakash
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
1. Heard Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4. No one is present on behalf of the Union of India.
2. We have permitted Sri Gupta to add the name of the partner representing the petitioner's firm during the course of the day and necessary corrections have been carried out indicating that this petition is filed through Sri Farukh Khan as one of the partners.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication and the order dated 25th February, 2014 sent to the petitioner rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 11.09.2013. Sri Gupta submits that in respect of the same subject matter, an FIR was lodged, copy whereof has been filed along with the writ petition to urge that on investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation did not find any material which is now sought to be alleged in the show cause notice, and has been made the basis for rejecting the explanation afforded by the petitioner. Sri Gupta submits that once the said inquiry and findings on the same set of facts exist, there is no occasion for the respondent to send a show cause notice and reject the same by a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Sri Gupta submits that no reason has been given for the explanation given by the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order dated 25th Feb, 2014 is in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the said facts and we categorically find from the show cause notice that the petitioner was called upon to give an explanation and answer to all three points that have been indicted therein. One of the issues relates to the sale of Hard Coke being transported on non-transporting or un-registered vehicles. The details whereof is extracted hereinunder;
Sl. No.
Vehicle No.
Type of Vehicle
Sl. No.
Vehicle No.
Type of Vehicle
UP-24-A-0178
Hero Hond M/Cycle
UP-32-A-6055
Vikram Taxi
UP-78-7880
LML Vespa
UP-47-D-1660
M/Cycle
UP-58-A-9539
Bajaj M/Cycle
UP-61-8391
Tractor
UP-61-F-0669
M/Cycle
UP-61-E-8624
Tractor
UP-58-8515
TVS M/Cycle
UP-61-H-9091
Reg. Not allotted
UP-85-R-7354
Tractor
UP-76-C-1506
Tractor
UP-50-F-1275
Autorickshaw
UP-42-P-1660
M/Cycle
UP-78-7058
LML Vespa
UP-42-2465
M/Cycle
UP-78-8238
Bajaj Super
UP-44-J-6561
M/Cycle
UP-50-R-2664
Moped
HR-33-C-0437
Hero Honda M/Cycle
UP-31-L-1029
M/Cycle
HR-33-L-0437
Series not yet started
UP-78-D-1961
Maruti Omni
HR-29-4177
Tractor
UP-41-H-0533
Hero Honda M/Cycle
HR-39-A-5387
Autorickshaw
5. The petitioner has given a reply to the same which is Annexure 13 to the writ petition. We have gone through the entire reply and we do not find any recital indicating that the petitioner's firm had not sold Hard Coke transported by such specific vehicles. To the contrary, the petitioner has taken shelter of the report of investigation by the CBI to contend that once the CBI has investigated the same and has not found any material, the respondent company cannot proceed to find any fault with the petitioner.
6. We are unable to agree with the arguments of Sri Gupta, inasmuch as, the report submitted by the CBI inquiry does not indicate any individual investigation of the specific vehicles that have been noted above, and therefore, the report of the CBI during investigation is no Gospel Truth. Apart from this, it was the duty of the petitioner to give specific reply on specific questions having been raised. The petitioner has given a very evasive reply which to our mind supports the conclusion drawn about the reply that it is unsatisfactory. The said conclusion is based on material on record and in such circumstances no further reasons are required to be given in the impugned order as urged by Sri Gupta.
7. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2014
Ajay
