9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure indicated in this judgment - Appeal is allowed - 9489 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2010 - G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.J. John Co, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.P. Vinod, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.]. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, a Private Limited Company engaged in the production, procurement and processing and export of sea-foods, and other related products, agreed to supply MT of pealed and undeveined (PUD) shrimps to one Cascade Marine Foods LLC (hereinafter referred to as, Cascade ), a company incorporated under the relevant laws of UAE at Sharjah. The Purchase Contract dated 26-9-2006, was signed by Pristine Food Inc., a local agent of Cascade, and as per the details of the contract, the PUD Shrimps were to be Block Frozen-with mandatory labels on both individual block and master carton and the destination was Sharjah, UAE. By a subsequent dated 19-10-2006 to the purchase contract, the PUD quantity was increased to a total of 24 MT without changing other terms of the purchase contract. Prior to the dispatch of the consignment, inspection was carried out by Saks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Frozen Foods LLC and as a result of that 1081 cartons of goods were delivered to the cold store designated by Freshly Frozen Foods on 14-4-2007 vide Cascade Store Issue Voucher 0390. Freshly Frozen Foods could retrieve only 25 kgs from 4 MT of product they had thawed out and they had directed Cascade to take back the material. When the Municipality Audit found out that the validity of PUD shrimp packages had expired they compulsorily destroyed the entire consignment of shrimps and the destruction cost was debited to Cascade. As a result, Cascade by its facsimile transmission dated 13-8-2007 informed the appellant that they rejected the entire consignment and they enclosed a Debit Note No. CMF/DN/108/07 for US $ 86,104.00 which represented the material cost and destruction charges and requested the appellant to settle the same at the earliest. 7. On 3-9-2007 Cascade by its letter addressed to Chairman, Marine Products Export Development Authority (for short, MPEDA), made a quality complaint on the shipment effected by the appellant for a value of US $ 83000 and a claim of total loss arising from intentional cheating by way of delivery of decomposed shrimp, unfit for human consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er stated that MPEDA would not be justified in canceling its certificate of registration on the above-mentioned grounds. 13. Third respondent without giving any reason and without giving the appellant any personal hearing held, vide its order dated 19-3-2008, that the registration certificate of the appellant stood cancelled. 14. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant appealed before the second respondent under Rule 44 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, the MPEDA Rules ). The appellate body fixed a personal hearing on 28-4-2008. The appellant vide letter dated 26-5-2008 addressed to the appellate body stated that despite several attempts made by the appellant to resolve the dispute with Cascade as advised by the MPEDA, the attempts proved futile and once again requested appellate body to adjudicate the dispute on merits as well as to revoke the order of cancellation. 15. The second respondent vide its letter dated 20-6-2008 informed the appellant that no more personal hearing was required and directed them to send any further evidence of proof of settlement with Cascade, if any. On 19-8-2008, the second resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in a quasi-judicial capacity and also they were acting in exercise of their statutory powers. Indisputably, the third respondent while purporting to cancel the registration certificate was acting in exercise of his power under Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules. 20. The show cause nofice dated 23-1-2008 was issued by the third respondent in exercise of this power. 21. For a proper appreciation of the points involved, the show cause notice is set out in etenso : Sub : SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Your attention is invited to our HQ s letter No. IV/53/06-MS/HO dated 25-10-2007 and subsequent joint meeting with the buyer held at our Head office on 5th September, 2007 on the trade complaint received from M/s. Cascade Marine Foods LLC, Sharjah. At the meeting it was convincingly proved that the cargo shipped by you to the above mentioned buyer was defective and you have not so far settled the complaint. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me vide Office Order Part-II No. 184012005 dated 25-11-2005 read with Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules, I hereby call upon you to show cause why the Certificate of Registration as an Exporter granted to you should not be cancelled for reasons given belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afeguards and one of them, in the words of the learned Chief Justice, is : (a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges leveled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; 28. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceeding become an idle ceremony. 29. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show cause notice. 33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it. 34. A somewhat similar observation was made by this Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja Shankar Pant Others, (2001) 1 SCC 182. In that case, this court was dealing with a show cause notice cum charge-sheet issued to an employee. While dealing with the same, this Court in paragraph 25 (page 198 of the report) by referring to the language in the show cause notice observed as follows : 25. Upon consideration of the language in the show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet, it has been very strongly contended that it is clear that the Officer concerned has a mindset even at the stage of framing of charges and we also do find some justification in such a submission since the chain is otherwise complete. 35. After paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-2006, I hereby cancel the Registration Certificate No. MAI/ME/119/06 dated 3-3-2006 issued to you. The original Certificate of Registration issued should be returned to this office for cancellation immediately. In case you are aggrieved by this order of cancellation, you may prefer an appeal to the Chairman within 30 days of the date of receipt of this order vide Rule 44 of the MPEDA Rules. 38. Therefore, the bias of the third respondent which was latent in the show cause notice became patent in the order of cancellation of the registration certificate. The cancellation order quotes the show cause notice and is a non-speaking one and is virtually no order in the eye of law. Since the same order is an appealable one it is incumbent on the third respondent to give adequate reasons. 39. On the question whether the entire proceeding for cancellation of registration initiated by the show cause notice and culminating in the order of cancellation is vitiated by bias we can appropriately refer to the succinct formulation of the principle by Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin and Others (1964 A.C. 40). The Learned Law Lord, while dealing with several concepts, which are not susceptible of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
