Delhi High Court
Madhur Courier Service vs Union Of India And Ors on 3 December, 2015
Author: Manmohan
16
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 280/2014 & CM APPL. 548/2014
MADHUR COURIER SERVICE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate with
Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
% Date of Decision : 03rd December, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"1. Allow the present Writ Petition.
2. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing Paragraph (II) Sub para 1.3 of the
Comprehensive Leasing Policy (as amended vide Freight
Marketing Circular no.11/2007 dated 12.04.2007) framed by
the Railway Board.
3. Issue a consequential order quashing clause 82 of the
Agreement executed between the Parties.
4. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.12.2013
issued by Respondent No.3.
5. Pass any other order(s) as may be deemed fit in interest
of justice."
2. Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner states that the show
cause notice is vague and bereft of any reason. According to him, the
petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to present its case.
Consequently, he submits that the impugned order is in violation of
principles of natural justice.
3. Even at the pass over stage, learned counsel for respondent-Railways
is not present. However, this Court may mention that at lunch time, the
counsel for Railways had mentioned the matter stating that if this Court is
inclined to allow the writ petition, the Railways should be given an
opportunity to issue another show cause notice.
4. This Court has perused the show cause notice at page 150 of the paper
book and is of the opinion that the same is non-reasoned.
5. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of C.Ex.,Bangalore Vs.
Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., 2007 (213) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.) has held as
under:-
"9. We find that in the show cause notice there was nothing
specific as to the role of the respondents, if any. The
arrangements as alleged have not been shown to be within the
knowledge or at the behest or with the connivance of the
respondents. Independent arrangements were entered into by
the respondents with the franchise holder. On a perusal of the
show cause notice the stand of the respondents clearly gets
established.
10. There is no allegation of the respondents being parties to
any arrangement. In any event, no material in that regard was
placed on record. The show cause notice is the foundation on
which the department has to build up its case. If the allegations
in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the
contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is
sufficient to hold that the notice was not given proper
opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause
notice. In the instant case, what the appellant has tried to
highlight is the alleged connection between the various
concerns. That is not sufficient to proceed against the
respondents unless it is shown that they were parties to the
arrangements, if any. As no sufficient material much less any
material has been placed on record to substantiate the stand of
the appellant, the conclusions of the Commissioner as affirmed
by the CEGAT cannot be faulted."
6. In view thereof, the present writ petition and application are allowed
and the impugned order dated 16th December, 2013 issued by respondent
No.3 is quashed.
7. However, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager/Freight
Northern Railway, New Delhi, is given another opportunity to issue fresh
show cause notice stating all the material facts as well as the grounds and
material on which cancellation of existing contracts and forfeiture of
security deposit and registration fee as well as black-listing is proposed.
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 03, 2015
js
