9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjourn the date of personal hearing fixed for 16-5-1988. It is also stated that the counsel had sufficient cause for asking for adjournment and, in any case, this was the first adjournment prayed for by the appellant s counsel. Thus, the refusal to adjourn the hearing resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the order should be set aside on this score alone. 3. The second ground of appeal is Collector s refusal to accede to the appellant s request for cross-examination of the seizing officers as also the witness relied upon by the department as contained in the counsel s letter dated 16-5-1988. A grievance has also been made of the point that the Collector did not communicate his decision to deny the cross-examination of witnesses etc., as requested and proceeded to pass the order without further adverting to the appellants counsel s request. 4. The third ground of appeal is that Collector has relied upon the statement of the appellant himself which was retracted as having been extracted from him under duress and pressure as soon as the appellant was released on bail. The order has also been assailed on the ground that it is based on the retracted self-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant s counsel had been accepted by the Collector and this fact is recorded in para 10 of the order. It was in these circumstances that the third request for adjournment was not considered justified and this fact is also mentioned in the order. As for the case law on adjournments cited by Smt. Wadhwa, the learned SDR submitted that a request for adjournment had to be considered in the light of the facts of each case. Shri Bhushan submitted that considering that two adjournments had already been granted to the appellants counsel, the third adjournment appeared to be unjustified even if it was made by the new counsel. He submitted that the ground on which the third adjournment was sought was vague and the request had to be considered in the light of the incorrect submission that copies of relied upon documents had not been supplied because of which the appellants had not been able to furnish a comprehensive reply. Since copies of documents had been supplied over three months ago, the Collector has correctly decided that there was little justification for yet another adjournment. In these circircumstances, the hearing could not have been prolonged indefinitely because opportunities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment on 4-2-1988. If the new counsel had devoted the attention which the matter deserved, there was no reason why she should have reiterated the request for adjournment on the ground of non-supply of documents which, in fact, had been supplied. The reason for adjournment in these circumstances would appear not to be due to non-supply of documents but because of the inability of the counsel to carefully go through the appeal papers. Although the adjudicating authority has merely recorded that the request for further adjournment is not justified, it has become necessary for us to go into the whole question at length in view of this being made a ground of appeal and one which was vehemently argued before us. 12. There is yet another circumstance which shows that the counsel had not bestowed the requisite attention to the appeal. While making a request for cross-examination of the official and non-official witnesses, no effort was made to see which witnesses are really required in the defence of the appellant. If this had been done, there was no reason why the counsel would not have given the names of specific witnesses and the reasons why their cross-examination was necessary. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli (AIR 1977 SC 1627) :- This rule which requires an opportunity to be heard to be given to a person likely to be affected by a decision is also, like the genus of which it is a species, not an inflexible rule having a fixed connotation. It has a variable content depending on the nature of the inquiry, the framework of the law under which it is held, the constitution of the authority holding the inquiry, the nature and character of the rights affected and the consequences flowing from the decision. It is therefore, not possible to say that in every case the rule of audi alteram portent requires that a particular specified procedure to be followed. It may be that in a given case the rule of audi alteram partem may import a requirement that witnesses whose statements are sought to be relied upon by the authority holding the inquiry should be permitted to be cross-examined by the party affected while in some other case it may not." 14. The question whether it was necessary to permit cross-examination of witnesses would have arisen if the learned counsel of the appellant had, after receipt of copies of relied upon documents, fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
