9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging the order of the learned Judge passed in the writ petition, insofar as rejecting the appellant's contention that the impugned order-in-original dated 12.07.2022 suffered from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellant's request for cross-examination of parties, whose statement has been relied upon, has not been considered nor was an opportunity of personal hearing granted, thereby suffers from arbitrariness falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. The appellant was a Customs Officer in Anna International Terminal, Chennai. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") based on specific intelligence that 18 carriers were involved in gold smugglin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant through his Advocate vide letter dated 09.03.2021 requested the Joint Director, DRI (CZU) to provide certified English Translation of the relied upon documents, which were in Tamil. The translated copies were furnished on 17.06.2021, after reminders vide letters dated 30.03.2021 and 05.06.2021. The appellant vide letter dated 17.02.2022 requested that he may be permitted to cross-examine the following personnel/ parties: i) Cross-examination of IO and SIO. ii) Cross-examination of AIU Officers posted in the shift of the noticee on 19.02.2020. iii) Cross-examination of 18 passengers/ carriers. iv) Cross-examination of Mr.P.Sathish Kumar. v) Cross-examination of Deputy Commissioner (In-charge Shift) of the noticee on 19.02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and also for the reason that personal hearing was not granted as contemplated/ mandated under Section 122 A of the Act. The learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition on finding that the question of personal hearing and several opportunities having been provided itself is in dispute. The Appellate Authority can examine the above disputed question of fact. Insofar as the submission on personal hearing, the learned Judge further found on examining Section 112 A of the Act, that the three adjournments mentioned therein are merely an outer limit/ cap on the number of adjournments and cannot be understood as mandating the officer to grant three adjournments. In other words, it was open to the adjudicating authority to complete the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is beyond the realm of writ jurisdiction. We also find that when there is an alternate remedy that is available, Courts would exercise restraint in entertaining the writ petitions. Further, entertaining the writ petitions is a matter of discretion and such discretion having been exercised by the learned Judge by rejecting the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternate remedy, this Court in appeal would normally be loathe in interfering with exercise of such discretion. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks liberty of this court to file appeal before the Appellate Authority, within a time frame to be stipulated by this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
