9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted on June 4, 1982, with a direction that the same be listed for hearing in the week commencing July 19, 1982, high-up in the list, as no interim stay was allowed in favour of the petitioner. The Writ Petition was then brought on the daily list with effect from July 12, 1982. When it was taken up for hearing on July 19, 1982, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent-Department. After hearing ex parte arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, the judgment was reserved. Before the pronouncement of the judgment, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1798 of 1982 was filed in the Registry on August 3, 1982, stating that the term of the previous counsel for the Department had expired and no written statement on behalf of the Department had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other partners being Sarvshri Surinder Kumar Anand and Walaiti Ram Chadha. The petitioner remained partner of the said Firm uptil April 15, 1977 on which date by virtue of a Dissolution Deed, he ceased to be a partner of the Firm. Thereafter the remaining two partners constituted the original Firm, named above. The petitioner produced a copy of the Dissolution Deed as Annexure P/1 to the Writ Petition. It was averred that by means of a registered letter, dated September 1, 1977, (Copy Annexure P/2), the Dissolution Deed and the new Partnership Deed were sent to the Registrar of Firms, Punjab, Chandigarh. Similar intimation was sent to the Income-tax Authorities, the Director of Industries and all other concerned officers. The petitioner pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of the Firm were inspected by the respondent, Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on July 1, 1977 and on the date some documents etc. were shown to the Inspecting Officer. The Firm was directed to produce certain other records and documents before the Authorities at Delhi. It is stated that not being satisfied with the working of the Firm, the respondent gave a Notice to the Firm on May 28, 1979 calling upon it to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed on the Firm under Section 4(1)(i)(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and also under clause 8(f) and (h) of the Imports Exports (Control) Order, 1955, as amended. According to the petitioner, although he had severed his connection with the Firm with effect from Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders he quashed and a Writ of Mandamus be issued to the respondent directing them to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of persons who had been debarred from receipt of import and export licences. 5. As already noticed, in spite of opportunities having been afforded to the respondent, no reply to the averments made in the Writ Petition has been filed, with the result that these averments have to be accepted unless they can be shown to be otherwise incorrect. The primary averment in this behalf is the fact that with effect from April 15, 1977, the petitioner had ceased to be a partner of the Firm Messrs Oriental Industrial Corporation, Mohali, Chandigarh, against whom the proposed action is being taken by the respondent. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to show cause was issued to the Firm, the same was not within the knowledge of the petitioner for the reason stated above. There is no averment on behalf of the respondent that any show cause notice was served upon the petitioner personally and this being so, the action of the respondent in so far as it affects the petitioner, is certainly illegal and impinges upon the rules of natural justice. The matter does not rest there. As soon as the petitioner learnt about the passing of the impugned order, he served a notice (Copy Annexure P/8) upon the Department to revise its decision and to issue a fresh circular in which the name of the petitioner be deleted from the array of persons who had been debarred from receiving import licences/impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even cared to put a written statement containing necessary material before his Court. The non-production of this vital material raises a presumption against the Department. The impugned order (Copy Annexure P/7) imposing the penalty and debarring its proprietor/partners from receipt of import licences/imported goods for a period of ten years cannot, therefore, apply to the writ petitioner who had ceased to be a partner of the Firm. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent was obliged to fall back on two legal objections, the first being that the impugned order Annexure P/7 was appealable under the law and no appeal having been preferred against it, the present Writ Petition was not competent. The second objection in the same context is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
