1987 (12) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Director of Publications, Opportunity of hearing

The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the issues of jurisdiction of the Director of Publications and the appellants' opportunity of hearing. Dr. Gauri Shanker, representing the appellants, initially raised a grievance regarding the jurisdiction of the Director of Publications. However, after reviewing the relevant notification, Dr. Shanker acknowledged the Director's jurisdiction. The only remaining grievance was that the Director made the decision without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The Director's order indicated that the appellants had tried to postpone the case using various pretexts, including moving the Delhi High Court without obtaining any order. The appellants withdrew their Writ Petition before the High Court, expecting the Director to await the High Court's decision. However, upon their return, they found an adverse order had been passed without a proper opportunity of hearing. Dr. Shanker requested the impugned order be set aside, and the matter be remanded for a fresh decision by the Director after affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal considered the submissions and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the Director for a de-novo decision within three months, ensuring the appellants are given a fair opportunity of hearing.

The primary issue addressed in the judgment was the lack of a proper opportunity of hearing provided to the appellants by the Director of Publications before making the impugned decision. Dr. Gauri Shanker contended that the Director's order did not clearly reject the appellants' request for adjournment and failed to inform them of any rejection. The Tribunal observed that the Director's order did not definitively indicate the rejection of the adjournment request, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. Dr. Shanker requested a fresh decision with a fair hearing, which was granted by the Tribunal through remanding the matter to the Director for a de-novo decision within a specified timeframe. This issue highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in administrative proceedings.

Another significant issue raised in the judgment was the jurisdiction of the Director of Publications in the matter. Initially, Dr. Gauri Shanker raised concerns about the Director's jurisdiction, but upon reviewing the relevant notification, he acknowledged the Director's authority in the case. The jurisdictional aspect was crucial in determining the validity of the Director's decision and the subsequent appeal process. While the jurisdictional issue was resolved in favor of the Director, the focus shifted to ensuring that the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the appellants' right to a proper hearing. This issue underscores the importance of clarity and transparency in administrative decision-making processes, especially when significant rights or liabilities are at stake.