Delhi High Court
Naresh Jain vs Uoi on 13 May, 2010
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.05.2010
+ WP(C) 4151/2007
NARESH JAIN ..... Petitioner
- versus -
UOI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioner : Mr Naveen Malhotra
For the Respondent/UOI : Mr Rakesh Tikku.
For the Respondent/Customs : Mr Mukesh Anand
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard
before the order in revision No. 124/2007 dated 20.02.2007 was passed by
the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance in a revision in respect of the order-in-appeal
No. CC(A)/AIR/362/D-I/05 dated 05.09.2005.
2. In the impugned order, the Joint Secretary has observed in
paragraph 6.1 that the Government has carefully gone through the written
and oral submissions. But, as per the affidavit filed by Mr Naveen
Malhotra, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, no written
submissions were filed nor any oral submissions were made before the said
Joint Secretary in respect of the said revision application. He has made a
categorical statement that on 29.09.2006, when the matter is said to have
been heard, he was not present and did not make any submissions before the
said Joint Secretary. The document at page 135 of our paper book, which
purports to be a record of personal hearing, does not inspire much
confidence. There are several dates mentioned in the said document and
there is only one signature of the said Mr Naveen Malhotra. According to
Mr Naveen Malhotra, he attended the proceedings on one date but he does
not recall on which date he signed the said record of personal hearing.
However, he is certain that he did not sign it on 29.09.2006. We are also of
the view that when several dates are mentioned, then it cannot be taken that
when a person has signed once it would relate to all the dates. The logic is
very clear. If on 08.03.2006, which is the first date mentioned therein, the
signature of Mr Naveen Malhotra was taken, then obviously no signatures
were taken on the other dates mentioned in the record of personal hearing.
And, if we assume that the signature was not taken on 08.03.2006, which is
the first date of hearing, then the document itself becomes very doubtful.
Therefore, we cannot place any reliance on the said document which
purports to be a record of personal hearing. Consequently, we are left with
only the affidavit which has been filed by Mr Naveen Malhotra indicating
that no personal hearing as such was granted to him and no oral submissions
were made by him before the said Joint Secretary nor were any written
submissions filed by him.
3. The only conclusion, therefore, is that an opportunity of hearing
was not granted to the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order has
to go on this ground alone. We set aside the impugned order and remit the
matter to the concerned revisional authority for adjudication afresh, after
granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In order to obviate any
difficulty with regard to issuance of notice etc., we direct the petitioner and/
or his authorized representative to appear before the said revisional
authority, in the first instance, on 07.07.2010 at 3:30 pm. We also make it
clear that the revisional authority shall keep a record of the personal hearing
on each date of hearing and get it signed by the persons who attend the
hearing.
4. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. The same stands disposed of.
Dasti to all the parties.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
MAY 13, 2010
SR
