TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enterprises, Madurai and M/s. International Traders are Proprietors concerned in the name of Shri. N.A Venkatesh who is also a son of Shri. N.S. Anjaiah Shetty. It is to be noted that most of the directors of the petitioner company and the proprietors/partners of the firms referred above are living under the same roof at No,6, Puttanna Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore - 4. Based on the intelligence received, the petitioner company was searched on 21 2.1985 and on 26.1 1985 and materials and records have been seized. Thereafter, as a follow up the premises of M/s. Subramaniam and Company was also searched and materials have been seized. During the investigation it was found that the petitioner company was involved in clandestine removal of goods to other firms which are infact run and controlled by the family members of Shri. N.S. Anjaiah Shetty. Hence, investigation has been made on those companies and materials, records and statements have been obtained. Based upon the documents and materials seized from the petitioner company and the marketing concerns, corroborated by the statements obtained from some of the directors of the petitioner company and 4 the persons in charge of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned orders. Shri. C. Saravanan has also submitted that the non availing of the alternative remedy is not for filing the writ petition. According to him, inasmuch as an appeal would lie to a Division Bench of the Honourable High Court against the order of the first respondent any objection in this regard is only academic and technical in nature. Moreover, the writ petition has been filed and argued only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice in refusing to grant permission to cross-examine. It cannot be dismissed on the ground of not availing the alterative remedy. Therefore, Shri C. Saravanan further submitted that in view of the fact that the writ petition has been admitted in the year 1999, the plea of not availing the alternative remedy at the time of final hearing after a period of ten years is impermissible in law. Submissions of the respondents Per contra, Shri. T.R. Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the availability of the alternative remedy provided under the Act. He further contended that the issue being one of question of fact, the same ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to remand the entire issue to the second respondent for reconsideration, after permitting cross-examination of the persons concerned. Even in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been stated that the reason for filing the writ petition is that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. The question of alternative remedy cannot be raised at the time of final hearing of the case that too after a period of ten years. It is well settled principle of law that the question of alternative remedy cannot be raised at the time of final hearing when the parties have spent considerable amount of time. (See: Prasad Film Laboratories v. Cegat (1993) 68 ELT 747 Madura Coats Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of C. Excise (1990) 48 ELT 321, Union of India v. Goodyear India Ltd. (1997) 89 ELT 321 Limenaph Chemicals v. Union of India (1993) 68 ELT 77 Carbonic Products v. Government of India (1992) 61 ELT 19 Bush Boake Island Ltd .v. Union of India (1995) 77 ELT 529 Sri Pillayar Soda Factory v. Union of India (1989) 20 ECC 93). We feel that on the facts of this case the plea that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors of the petitioner company thereby the violations have been made deliberately.Shri. C. Saravanan, has contended that the statements obtained behind the back of the petitioner cannot be used or relied on against the petitioner. His further case is that inspite of the specific request for cross examination the same has been rejected. Hence, there is a serious violation of principles of natural justice. We are of the opinion that on the face of the materials on records that the refusal of permission to cross-examination would not vitiate the orders impugned on the facts of the case. A finding of fact has been arrived at by the respondents that all the other concerns were either owned or controlled by Shri S. Anjalah Shetty and other directors (since deceased) It is also to be noted that most of the detectors of the petitioner company and the proprietors/ partners of the other concerns have been living under the same roof and in fact two of the said concerns have been functioning in the same premises as that of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the said finding of fact, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter to the second respondent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice, however strong the language in which they are couched may be and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. In this case, there is no materials produced by the petitioner to show that the statements have been obtained out of coercion and force. There is nothing to show on record as to why a public authority has to act against a private person by misusing his power. Further, the action of mala fides and coercion will have to be proved by a party who alleges the same with clear records. In Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India and Others AIR 1997 SC 2560: (1997) 1 SCC 508, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that even the confession which was retracted subsequently is an admission and binding on the person concerned. It was further observed under those circumstances, the refusal to give permission for cross-examination would not amount to violations of principles of natural justice. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch breach, in the show-cause notice issued on 21.8.1961, all the material on which the Customs Authorities have relied was set out and it was then for the appellant to give a suitable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been produced to enable it to cross-examine them. In our opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of tile appellant or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. Accordingly, we hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant. We find that the ratio applied by the Supreme Court is applicable to the present case as well. It is also well settled principle of law that all the official actions in discharge of a public duty are held to be valid unless proved or otherwise. In this connection, It is useful to refer the judgment in Backiam and Another v. Krishnan (2000) 1 TNLJ and Natarajan v. Veeran (2002) 2 MLJ III wherein it has been held that there is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
