2016 (3) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... since the 1st respondent had passed the impugned orders even before the expiry of the 15 days time granted in the notice, it clearly establishes that the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 22.06.2011 and 30.06.2011 and the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent are liable to be set aside. - Matter remanded ba .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. 3. On a perusal of the order dated 22.06.2011, it is clear that the notice issued to the petitioner was served by RPAD on 07.06.2011 wherein the petitioner was called upon to file their objections, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Even as per the order dated 22.06.2011, 15 days time granted in the notice served on 07.06.2011 expired only on 22.06.2011. But .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on either side, since the 1st respondent had passed the impugned orders even before the expiry of the 15 days time granted in the notice, it clearly establishes that the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 22.06.2011 and 30.06.2011 and the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent are liable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X