2024 (9) TMI 1237 - SCH - GST

Correctness and legality of the order passed by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court - absence of the appellant's counsel during the proceedings - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - No doubt, the High Court has noted that the counsel for the appellant did not appear before the High Court on certain dates. However, when the matter was called and reserved on 29.04.2024 and the judgment has been pronounced on 25.072024, in between the matter was taken up on 18.07.2024 on which date the counsel for the appellant herein did not appear as such. It is not known as to why after the case was reserved for orders on 29.04.2024 it was once again listed on 18.07.2024. On that day at least, the counsel for the appellant could have been heard. If he was absent on that day, an opportunity ought to have been given with possibly a warning to the appellant to ensure that his counsel was present on the next date of hearing. However, we find that on 18.07.2024, possibly the matter was again reserved and on 25.07.2024, the impugned order has been passed. The fact remains that the counsel for the appellant herein who had the advantage of an order of bail in his favour granted by the trial Court, was not heard in the matter and the impugned order of cancellation of bail was passed without hearing the counsel for the appellant herein. The impugned order is set aside, the matter is remanded to the High Court. The High Court to re-consider the application filed by the respondent herein with regard to the cancellation of bail granted to the appellant herein. It is needless to observe that reasonable opportunity would be given to both sides for advancing their arguments on the said application. The appellant shall ensure that his counsel is present on the next date of hearing and not procrastinate the matter all over again. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness and legality of the order passed by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in a bail cancellation application.
2. Breach of principles of natural justice due to the absence of the appellant's counsel during the proceedings.
3. Remand of the matter to the High Court for re-consideration with a directive to provide reasonable opportunity for both parties to present their arguments.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the order passed by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in a bail cancellation application. The appellant was initially granted bail by the trial court but the Union of India sought cancellation of the bail. The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court passed the impugned order without hearing him, emphasizing the importance of the appellant's liberty. On the other hand, the respondent contended that sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant, and the appeal should be dismissed. The Supreme Court noted the absence of the appellant's counsel during crucial proceedings and found a breach of natural justice principles. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for re-consideration. The High Court was directed to allow both parties a fair opportunity to present their arguments, emphasizing the appellant's counsel's presence at the next hearing to avoid further delays. The Supreme Court clarified that no observation was made on the merits of the case, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.

This judgment primarily addresses the issue of the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in a bail cancellation application. The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court did not hear him before passing the order, highlighting a breach of natural justice principles. The Supreme Court acknowledged the absence of the appellant's counsel during key proceedings, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the matter for re-consideration by the High Court.

The crucial aspect of this judgment revolves around the breach of natural justice due to the absence of the appellant's counsel during the proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of hearing both parties before making a decision, especially in matters concerning liberty. By setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case, the Court ensured that the appellant's counsel would have a fair opportunity to present arguments, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court's directive to remand the matter to the High Court for re-consideration is aimed at rectifying the procedural irregularity and ensuring a fair hearing for both parties. By instructing the High Court to provide reasonable opportunities for presenting arguments and stressing the appellant's counsel's presence at the next hearing, the Court aims to prevent further delays and uphold the principles of natural justice in the legal proceedings.