TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be granted an opportunity to look into the documents on which the adjudication is proposed. In that event, he will be in a position to know as to the author of which statement is necessary to be cross-examined. In the instant case the respondent had not indicated as to why the cross-examination was necessary. If a fresh application is made, the same shall be duly considered by the appellate authority, keeping in view the principles indicated above. - Appeal (civil) 2137 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2006 - ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ. JUDGMENT: ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The controversy lies within a v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Petition was filed before the High Court. While hearing the matter on the issue, learned Single Judge noted that there were inconsistent views expressed by different learned Single Judges. This is how the matter was referred to a Division Bench. By the impugned order the High Court noted that there was no dispute that the amount on being determined by the final assessment on the ground of alleged pilferage if recovered would result in civil consequences. Therefore, the enquiry being quasi judicial in nature fair play is required and fair play implies the fair opportunity which includes cross examination of persons whose statements were going to be relied by the authorities. The High Court accordingly held as follows: In the instan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in Nagendra Nath Bora and Anr. V Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors. (1958 SCR 1240) it was submitted that as in the said case, the rules in the present case make no provisions for the reception of evidence oral or documentary and even for issuing of any notice; therefore also the High Court was not right. Finally, with reference to a decision of this Court in The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad and Anr. (1966 Suppl. SCR 401) it was submitted that the right to hearing did not include the right to cross examine and the right must depend upon the circumstances. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Clause 39.9.2 provides for grant of a reasonable opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pass an order setting out his conclusions and the reasons thereof and communicate a copy of the order to the consumer and demand the amount, if any, due from the consumer on the basis of such order after giving credit to the amounts paid by him. At this juncture, it is to be noted that in paragraph 39 of Hyderabad Vanaspathi s case (supra) what was observed by this Court was in relation to disconnection and for that purpose reliance was placed on an earlier decision of this Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Harsh Wood Products (1996 (4) SCC 522). At the stage of issuing notice of disconnection there is no question of granting any opportunity to the consumer. On the basis of prima facie view of the concerned officer, notice of disconnec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows: (i) What is fair and proper under the circumstances. (ii) The expression reasonable is not susceptible of a clear and precise definition. A thing which is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another. Reasonable does not mean the best, it means most suitable in a given set of circumstances. (iii) There is no point on which a greater amount of decision is to be found in Courts of law and equity than as to what is reasonable : It is impossible a priori to state what is reasonable as such in all cases. You must have the particular facts of each case established before you can ascertain what is meant by reasonable under the circumstance Lord Romilly. M.R. Labouchere v. Dawson, (1872), LR 13 Eq.CA.325. In Khem C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made requesting for grant of an opportunity to cross examine any official, the same has to be considered by the adjudicating authority who shall have to either grant the request or pass a reasoned order if he chooses to reject the application. In that event an adjudication being concluded, it shall be certainly open to the consumer to establish before the appellate authority as to how he has been prejudiced by the refusal to grant opportunity to cross-examine any official. As has been rightly noted by the High Court in the impugned judgment where the reliance is only on accounts prepared by a person, cross examination is not necessary. But where it is based on reports alleging tampering or pilferage, the fact situation may be different. Bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
