2024 (12) TMI 622 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice in revoking NOC without show cause notice or hearing - no reasons in the impugned order - NOC to operate from all ports - For trade license' to facilitate the handling of Hazardous waste oil discharge, garbage, and scrap in the JSW Jaigad Port. - HELD THAT - The impugned order/communication dated 16 January 2024 suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice. Firstly, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner; secondly, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner; and thirdly, because the impugned order/communication contains no reason. Merely stating that the NOC is revoked because of violation of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules and Regulations established thereunder does not amount to a reason but only a conclusion. From this conclusion, it is also most difficult to discern what violations were allegedly committed by the petitioner. The impugned order/communication dated 16 January 2024 set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in revoking NOC without show cause notice or hearing, lack of reason in impugned order, request for damages and compensation.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought substantive reliefs including the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the impugned order revoking the NOC, and to direct the respondents to reinstate the NOC and pay damages for the loss of business. The impugned order dated 16 January 2024 revoked the NOC granted to the petitioner due to alleged violations of the Customs Act, 1962 and rules thereunder.

The court noted that the impugned order lacked compliance with the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was granted, and the order contained no specific reasons for the revocation. The court emphasized that merely stating the violation of the Customs Act and rules did not suffice as a valid reason without specifying the alleged violations committed by the petitioner. The court found the lack of procedural fairness in the issuance of the impugned order.

The respondent claimed that a show cause notice was issued, but failed to produce it. The petitioner's counsel presented a show cause notice dated 23 August 2024, issued almost eight months after the impugned order. The court held that the delayed show cause notice did not rectify the initial procedural defects in the revocation process. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 16 January 2024, allowing the respondents to proceed with the show cause notice dated 23 August 2024.

Regarding the petitioner's claim for damages and compensation, the court declined to consider it within the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue this relief through a separate legal action. The court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner without any order for costs, directing all parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative decisions and emphasized the need for procedural fairness in such matters.