2016 (3) TMI 658 - HC - Customs

Seeking prohibition in continuing the proceedings by Settlement Commission - Order reserved without giving opportunity of hearing to changed counsel of petitioner - Departure from the rules of natural justice - Held that - it is not possible for this Court to enquire, at this stage, into whether the Petitioners were denied a hearing by the Settlement Commission. Moreover, the question of the Settlement Commission becoming a party to these proceedings to contest such an allegation simply does not arise. More importantly, with orders having been reserved on the applications, the question of issuing a writ of prohibition to the Settlement Commission at this stage again does not arise. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petitions seeking prohibition against Settlement Commission's proceedings.
2. Allegation of denial of hearing and departure from natural justice.
3. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to two writ petitions seeking a writ of prohibition against the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise, to halt proceedings in specific settlement cases. The petitions aimed to prevent the Commission from continuing the proceedings without providing the petitioners with an opportunity to be heard.

2. The petitioners contended that their legitimate request for an adjournment to hear their changed counsel was not granted by the Settlement Commission. They argued that orders were reserved without hearing them, solely based on the written submissions of the respondents. The petitioners relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in S. Govinda Menon v. The Union of India (1967) 2 SCR 566 to support their plea for a direction to the Settlement Commission to refrain from proceeding further until the petitioners are given a chance to present their case.

3. The Court, after hearing the submissions of the petitioners' counsel, acknowledged the concern raised but deemed the petitions premature. The judgment highlighted the legal position that a writ of prohibition aims to restrict courts or tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction or departing from the rules of natural justice. It was noted that the petitioners did not argue that the Settlement Commission lacked jurisdiction but rather focused on the alleged departure from natural justice.

4. The Court concluded that at the current stage, it was not feasible to determine if the petitioners were denied a fair hearing by the Settlement Commission. With the orders already reserved in the applications, the Court found issuing a writ of prohibition at that juncture unnecessary. However, the judgment clarified that the dismissal of the writ petitions did not prevent the petitioners from challenging the Settlement Commission's orders if adverse to them based on the same grounds in the future.

5. In the final disposition, the Court dismissed the writ petitions and the pending applications, emphasizing that the petitioners could raise their concerns if needed in the future. The judgment concluded by ordering the issuance of the order dasti.