1983 (11) TMI 217 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Denial of sufficient opportunity to present the case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India
The petitioners, who are manufacturers of stainless steel utensils, obtained R.E.P. licenses from registered exporters for importing stainless steel sheets/strips. The first respondent initially endorsed the import licenses for the petitioners, allowing them to open a letter of credit for the import. However, later, the first respondent issued a show cause notice and subsequently canceled the endorsements, leading to the petitioners filing a writ petition challenging the order. The petitioners contended that similar licenses were issued to others in a similar situation, alleging a violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The court did not delve into the merits of this allegation but focused on the denial of opportunity to present their case adequately.

Issue 2: Denial of sufficient opportunity to present the case
The court, after considering the facts, found that the petitioners were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case effectively. It noted that the mistake in making the endorsements was on the part of the department and not due to any misleading actions by the petitioners. The court emphasized that the department should have provided a fair chance for the petitioners to explain their position. The petitioners had requested time to respond to the show cause notice, but no reply was given, and final orders were passed abruptly. Consequently, the court held that the petitioners were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order. The court directed the first respondent to proceed with the matter after giving the petitioners a fair opportunity to present their case, without imposing any costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras allowed the writ petition on the grounds of denial of sufficient opportunity to present the case, setting aside the impugned order. The court highlighted the importance of providing a fair chance for individuals to explain their position, especially in cases where administrative errors are involved.