2016 (4) TMI 765 - HC - Customs

Validity of order dated July 14, 1987 - Violation of principles of natural justice - Held that - the original order dated July 14, 1987 cannot be said to be vitiated by the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was aware of the proceedings. It chose not to appear thereon. It chose to issue a letter dated July 13, 1987 and thereafter did not follow it up or kept itself abreast with the developments or the progress of the adjudicatory proceedings. A prudent person acting reasonably is expected to keep a track of the proceeding. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order dated July 14, 1987; Principles of natural justice; Proof of service of original notice; Negligence of petitioner in adjudicatory proceedings.

Analysis:
1. Appeal against order dated July 14, 1987:
The petitioner sought to appeal against an order dated July 14, 1987 in 2002, which was subsequently rejected. The appellate tribunal refused to entertain the appeal against this order. The petitioner argued that the original order was a nullity due to a breach of natural justice principles. However, the court found that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings but failed to take any steps until 2002, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the tribunal.

2. Principles of natural justice:
The petitioner contended that the original order was passed in breach of natural justice principles as they were not informed of the outcome of their request for time before the order was issued. Citing a previous case, the petitioner argued that such an order is a nullity and cannot be cured at the appellate stage. However, the court noted that the petitioner's lack of action from 1987 to 2002 did not support the claim of a breach of natural justice.

3. Proof of service of original notice:
The appellate tribunal based its dismissal of the appeal on two grounds. Firstly, it found that the petitioner was served with the original order dated July 14, 1987, as it was sent via registered post with acknowledgment due card. The court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding non-delivery of the order rested on the petitioner, which they failed to discharge. The court highlighted the importance of timely action and diligence in legal proceedings.

4. Negligence of petitioner in adjudicatory proceedings:
The court addressed the petitioner's negligence in not actively participating in the proceedings from 1987 to 2002. It noted that the petitioner's failure to stay informed and take necessary steps during this period could not be used to their advantage. The court emphasized the expectation of a prudent person to keep track of legal proceedings and deemed the petitioner's conduct as negligent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, emphasizing the importance of diligence and timely action in legal matters.