9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when a person has signed once it would relate to all the dates. The logic is very clear. If on 08.03.2006, which is the first date mentioned therein, the signature of Mr Naveen Malhotra was taken, then obviously no signatures were taken on the other dates mentioned in the record of personal hearing. And, if we assume that the signature was not taken on 08.03.2006, which is the first date of he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard before the order in revision No. 124/2007 dated 20.02.2007 was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing, does not inspire much confidence. There are several dates mentioned in the said document and there is only one signature of the said Mr Naveen Malhotra. According to Mr Naveen Malhotra, he attended the proceedings on one date but he does not recall on which date he signed the said record of personal hearing. However, he is certain that he did not sign it on 29.09.2006. We are also of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m and no oral submissions were made by him before the said Joint Secretary nor were any written submissions filed by him. 3. The only conclusion, therefore, is that an opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order has to go on this ground alone. We set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the concerned revisional authority for adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
