9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment addresses the divergence of views on whether the third proviso to Section 4M of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 requires granting a personal hearing before waiving part or full of the penalty. Summary: The High Court of Delhi considered the necessity of granting an opportunity, akin to a personal hearing, before exercising discretion to waive part or full of the penalty under the third proviso to Section 4M of the Act. The Court referred to previous decisions and observed a conflict in views. While one case held that no statutory requirement mandated such an opportunity, another case emphasized the principles of natural justice necessitating the grant of such an opportunity. The Court noted that the Apex Court had previously observed that denial of an opportunity may not always violate the principles of natural justice. The Court heard the petitioner's counsel extensively, despite the petition becoming infructuous over time. The counsel argued that the requirement for a personal hearing should not be universally dismissed based on a specific case's facts. The Court agreed, emphasizing that decisions are authoritative for what they decide in specific contexts, not universally applicable principles. The judgment delved into the concept of natural justice, highlighting its importance in quasi-judicial proceedings. It outlined the audi alteram partem rule, emphasizing the need for fair play and notice to parties before adverse orders are passed. The Court stressed that even if a statute is silent on granting an opportunity, principles of natural justice must be read into the process unless explicitly excluded. In conclusion, the Court recognized the significance of natural justice in administrative and quasi-judicial actions, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural safeguards. The judgment underscored the evolving nature of natural justice principles and their application to various legal contexts.
|
