9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Bias of the adjudicating officer. Detailed Analysis 1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The appellant contended that the proceedings and the resultant order of the Additional Collector of Customs were vitiated due to the violation of the principles of natural justice, as he did not have a fair hearing before the adjudication was made. The Customs authorities issued a Show Cause Memo dated March 3, 1956, requiring the appellant to explain why the goods should not be confiscated and penal action taken against him under Section 167 (8) and (37) of the Sea Customs Act. The appellant's solicitors requested inspection of documents and adjournment of the interview, but the Customs authorities did not provide a clear response. The court noted that the Customs authorities mixed up two separate proceedings, leading to confusion and denying the appellant a fair hearing. The correspondence between the appellant's solicitors and the Customs authorities indicated that the appellant was misled and deprived of an opportunity to make adequate representation against the proposed penalty. The court emphasized that a fair hearing has two elements: the opportunity to be heard and the reasonableness of that opportunity, both of which were found lacking in this case. 2. Bias of the Adjudicating Officer The appellant argued that the order could not be sustained on the ground of bias, as S.K. Srivastava, who made the order, had acted both as Judge and prosecutor. The court examined the involvement of S.K. Srivastava in the investigation and found that he took a large part in the investigation leading to the adjudication proceedings and the criminal trial against the appellant. The court referred to the principle that an accuser should not act as a judge, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The court concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood of bias on the part of S.K. Srivastava, which disqualified him from adjudicating the matter. Conclusion The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal, and directed a Writ of Certiorari to be issued quashing the order of S.K. Srivastava, Additional Collector of Customs, dated June 19, 1956. The court also noted that nothing in the judgment would prevent the Customs authorities from proceeding against the appellant in accordance with the law. Parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout, and the judgment was certified for two Counsel.
|
