9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have requested both the parties to advance their arguments on this aspect, by granting waiver of pre-deposit. 2. Shri Kantawalla, the ld. advocate, for the appellants submits that the appellants were served with show cause notice on 26-4-1994. Because, only 15 days were granted for filing reply to the show cause notice and as the allegations against the appellants were of grave nature, they wanted some time for purpose of preparing detailed reply and hence they sought for extension of time. Though extension of time was granted for filing the reply to the show cause notice, the matter was also listed for final hearing and this date of hearing was fixed as on 14-7-1994. They sought for adjournment which was granted to them and the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have taken into consideration their written reply and ought to have also given them an opportunity of being heard in person. In his submission, therefore, the matter not only calls for unconditional stay and waiver but would call for remand. 3 Shri Mondal, the ld. Departmental Representative, however, submits that he is not agreeable to the passing of order of remand at this stage. He has referred to the records called for from the Department and has submitted that the show cause notice issued on 26-4-1994 granted 15 days time to the appellants to file the reply. However, the Department received a letter dated 27-4-1994 from the appellants seeking for extension by 15 days which came to be granted vide their letter dated 4-5-1994. Yet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the letter dated 15-9-1994 received from the appellants and the endorsement made by the adjudicating authority thereon to the effect that the decision to proceed ex parte had already been taken. The same has been duly communicated to the appellants vide the Department's letter dated 4-10-1994. In his submission, when the matter was decided to be proceeded with ex parte, it was not necessary for the adjudicating authority to enter into the correspondence with the appellants on the letters sent subsequent to the taking of the said decision to proceeds ex parte. He also pleads that the signing of the order precedes by preparation of draft order and the relevant date of decision in relation to the adjudication proceedings would be the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, that the decision is taken on 30-8-1994 only to proceed ex parte against the appellants. it is required of the quasi judicial authority to act in a judicial way and follow the principles of natural justice which requires that a person may not be condemned unless he has been given an opportunity. It was required of the Adjudicating Authority to have atleast, considered the reply when the same was filed after he took the decision to proceed ex parte but before he actually took its final decision. The decision to proceed ex parte being quasi administrative nature could have been reviewed and there is no bar to review such an order. We, are therefore, of the opinion that there has been non-compliance with the principles of natural justice an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
