9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 91 - HC - CustomsCHA - prohibitory order - requirement of issuance of Show cause notice - The order passed by the commissioner challenged only on the ground that before passing the prohibitory order against the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. - Held that - It is now well-settled law that even administrative orders which affects the rights of a party can be passed only by following the principles of natural justice. That Order under Regulation 21 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice on the face of it is arbitrary and thus not sustainable in law. - liberty is granted to the respondent to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Regulation 21 of Customs House Licence for lack of opportunity of hearing. Analysis: The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Licence. The impugned order was contested on the basis that the petitioner was not provided with a hearing before the prohibitory order was issued against them. The respondent argued that the order under Regulation 21 was interlocutory in nature and did not require a show-cause notice. However, the Court found that the impugned order could not be sustained as it was a final order passed without the authority having jurisdiction under Regulation 22. The Court emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice even in administrative orders that impact the rights of a party. It was noted that the order under Regulation 21 was passed in violation of these principles, rendering it arbitrary and legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order. The respondent was granted liberty to issue a fresh order in accordance with the law, provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative decisions. The judgment underscored the requirement for procedural fairness, even in cases involving regulatory actions against individuals or entities.
|
