2018 (5) TMI 1897 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - existence of statutory alternative remedy of appeal - the petitioner contends that, the petitioner was denied a right of cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution produced in the adjudicating process - HELD THAT - The impugned order at paragraph 28.3 records that, the request for cross-examination of one witness was denied. No reason is given in the impugned order as to why such request for cross-examination was denied. On the ground of no reason itself, the impugned order stands vitiated. Moreover, a party in an adjudicating process is entitled to a right of cross-examination immediately upon the other party producing any witness in support of the case of such party - the impugned order stands vitiated by reason of breach of principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated October 31, 2017 is set aside.

Issues Involved:
Challenge to an order in original for denial of right of cross-examination in an adjudicating process.

Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition despite Statutory Alternative Remedy:
The High Court deliberated on the maintainability of a writ petition challenging an order in original dated October 31, 2017, despite the existence of a statutory alternative remedy. It was emphasized that while the general rule is that a Writ Court does not intervene when a statutory alternative remedy is available, exceptions exist. The court clarified that a writ petition can be maintainable if the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, exceeds jurisdiction, breaches fundamental rights, or if the vires of the Act is under challenge. This analysis underscores the discretionary nature of the court's intervention in such cases.

2. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice - Denial of Cross-Examination Right:
The petitioner contended that they were denied the right of cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses during the adjudicating process. The impugned order, as highlighted in paragraph 28.3, acknowledged the denial of a request for cross-examination without providing any reasons for such denial. The court held that the absence of reasons itself vitiated the impugned order. Additionally, it was emphasized that a party in an adjudicating process is entitled to the right of cross-examination immediately upon the other party producing any supporting witnesses. The failure to allow this right was deemed a breach of principles of natural justice, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

3. Completion of Adjudicating Process and Right of Cross-Examination:
Despite setting aside the impugned order, the court clarified that this decision does not prevent the authorities from completing the adjudicating process in accordance with the law. The judgment reiterated that in an adjudicating process, when witnesses are presented by one party, the opposing party has a right of cross-examination. This right can only be waived by the party entitled to it, and any such waiver must be expressly made. This aspect highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the parties' entitlement to essential rights during legal proceedings.

4. Disposal of Writ Petition:
Concluding the analysis, the court disposed of the Writ Petition No. 56 of 2018 with no order as to costs. The judgment, through its detailed examination of the issues raised, reaffirmed the significance of upholding principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and the proper exercise of discretion by the court in matters involving statutory alternative remedies and denial of essential rights in adjudicating processes.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Calcutta High Court encapsulates the key legal considerations, findings, and directives issued by the court in response to the challenges raised by the petitioner regarding the denial of the right of cross-examination in the adjudicating process.

← Previous Next →