9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 i.e. no red corner notice has yet been issued in respect of the Petitioner. These facts are not disputed and distinguished by the Revenue. Thus, this issue having already been considered by a coordinate bench of this Court and no new facts have thereafter have been brought to our notice which would warrant a different view. Rejection of Petitioner's application for copy of the reply filed by BCCI - permission for joint hearing of all the noticee - denial of cross-examination - HELD THAT:- The compliant/ show cause notice relies upon the statement of persons of whose cross examination is sought. Thus, the basic rules of natural justice would require grant of the same, in case, the statements are being relied upon by the Respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Rules). 2. The Petitioner's grievance to order dated 21st August, 2017 is to the extent it rejects Petitioner's application for copy of the reply filed by BCCI (Board of Control of Cricket in India) i.e. main noticee in the show cause notice dated 20th July, 2011 which is also issued to the Petitioner. So far as the order dated 8th January, 2018 is concerned, the challenge is to the extent it declines to grant cross examination of 5 persons namely (a) Shri N. Srinivasan, (b) Mr. Peter Griffith, (c) Mr. Andrew Wildblood, (d) Shri A. K. Nazeer Khan and (e) Shri D. K. Singh (complainant), whose statements are being relied upon by the Respondent in adjudication pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re informed that the status and condition of the Petitioner viz-a-viz Indian Law continues to remain what it was on 30th January, 2018 i.e. no red corner notice has yet been issued in respect of the Petitioner. These facts are not disputed and distinguished by the Revenue. Thus, this issue having already been considered by a coordinate bench of this Court and no new facts have thereafter have been brought to our notice which would warrant a different view. Therefore, we follow the same and hear the Petition in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Hora submits that the issue raised herein are concluded in the Petition by the order of this Court dated 30th January, 2018 in Writ Petition No.2803 of 2015(supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eply filed by the BCCI to the show cause notice dated 20th July, 2011. 8. So far as the impugned communication dated 8th January, 2018 is concerned, it inter alia disposes of the request for cross examination and joint hearing of all parties to the show cause notice by rejecting the same. So far as the issue of cross examination is concerned, we find that the compliant/ show cause notice relies upon the statement of persons of whose cross examination is sought. Thus, the basic rules of natural justice would require grant of the same, in case, the statements are being relied upon bythe Respondent No.1. In any event, this issue stands concluded by the order dated 30th January, 2018 in Writ Petition No. 2803 of 2015 (supra) in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 'causes prejudice' unless there is some indication for the same in the communication. This is a vital part of the decision making process. Absence of particulars to support the conclusions of 'causing prejudice' or 'without justification' would evidence nonapplication of mind to the application made by the Petitioner. 12. In the result, we pass the following order: (a) Communication dated 8th July, 2018 to the extent it refuses to grant cross examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon, is set aside. The Respondent No.1 is directed to offer cross examination of all persons on whose statements, he seeks to rely upon for adjudication; (b) Communication dated 8th January, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
