TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could have also furnished proof of having served the documents in question on the petitioner. Such an averment or finding is totally absent in the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel also drew my attention to yet another aspect. At page No.85 of the typed set of papers, the Speed Post cover in which the show cause notice was sent has been enclosed. It is seen therefrom that the said show cause notice was despatched on 26.02.2020. It is seen in the postal endorsement that the weight of the contents was 110 gms. and 50 Rupees stamp was affixed on the cover. The show cause notice runs to 36 pages. It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that the weight of the show cause notice alone would come to 110 gms. If all the 24 docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied on documents were not furnished to him and since this is a grave violation of the principles of natural justice, he is entitled to maintain this writ petition. 4. Per contra the learned Standing counsel even while taking me through the averments set out in the counter affidavit contended that the relied on documents were very much served on the petitioner along with show cause notice. Therefore, the issue boils down to this:- Whether the relied on documents were served on the petitioner or not? 5. The petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 25.02.2020. The said show cause notice contains an annexure which refers to as many as 24 documents. The petitioner after receiving show cause notice sent a reply dated 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. I had already pointed out that in reply to the show cause notice, the specific prayer for supply of the documents was made. In the impugned order, though it is admitted that the reply was received in response to the show cause notice from the petitioner, this contention as regards the non-supply of the relied on documents was not dealt with or controverted. Nothing stopped the adjudicating authority from averring in the impugned order that the contention taken by the noticee/petitioner herein was false. He could have also furnished proof of having served the documents in question on the petitioner. Such an averment or finding is totally absent in the impugned order. 8. The petitioner's counsel also drew my attention to yet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
