9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l error or has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice or is vitiated by bias or malice or is perverse - The petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses - the impugned order suffers from breach of principles of natural justice - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P. No. 11792 (W) of 2017 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2017 - Debangsu Basak, J. Shri S.B. Saraf, K.K. Maiti, N.K. Chowdhury, Arijit Chakrabarti, Tapan Bhanja and N. Chowdhury, for the Petitioner. Shri Somnath Ganguli and A. Raiyashree, for the Respondent. ORDER The petitioners assail an order-in-original dated January 17, 2017. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, although the order-in-origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the documentary evidence. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 6. Although the petitioners have statutory alternative remedy, the petitioners have chosen to apply under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order-in-original. Existence of a statutory alternative remedy is not a complete bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. Despite existence of a statutory alternative remedy, the writ petition is maintainable if it is demonstrated that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error or has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice or is vitiated by bias or malice or is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities had seized watches. Again in the facts of that case it was held that, the principles of natural justice did not require a right of cross-examination. 12. The fourth case referred to by the impugned order is AIR 1984 SC 273 (K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India). There it was held that, the principles of natural justice will depend on facts and circumstances of each particular case. 13. Fifth case referred to by the impugned order is AIR 1976 SC 1686 (H.C. Sarin v. Union of India). There it was held that, a delinquent railway officer is not entitled to the services of a professional lawyer of choice the facts obtaining in the present case are absolutely different. 14. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra), the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
