TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, for it would depend on the facts of each case. As found by the learned Judge, whether the appellant was granted personal hearing or not, turns out to be a disputed question of fact. The examination of such disputed question of fact is normally an exercise, which is beyond the realm of writ jurisdiction - It is also found 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 di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e connivance of some Customs officers, maintained surveillance along with independent witnesses. Intelligence input was received that one individual was co-ordinating with two Customs officers, one of them being the appellant herein allegedly by passing on the photographs and flight details of the carriers. On being confronted, the appellant after initial denial of his involvement, is stated to have admitted that they planned to clear some passengers. The 18 carriers on arrival by various flights were intercepted and according to the department, they were carrying gold in paste form concealed in their rectum. The carriers/ passengers opted for personal search and voluntarily accepted to eject the concealed packets. A statement was recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2022 reiterating the appellant's request for cross-examination of the above personnel/ parties. Thereafter, an interim reply dated 20.04.2022 to the show cause notice dated 17.02.2021, was submitted, stating that the appellant would submit its final reply within 15 days of cross-examination. As there was no response from the respondent, the appellant is stated to have filed an application on 18.08.2022 under RTI requesting the status of the impugned proceedings and his request for cross-examination and copy of the order passed, The concerned CPIO replied that the case was adjudicated and final orders passed in order-in-original No.120/2022-23 Commissionerate-I dated 12.07.2022. 6. The appellant on perusal of the order-in-original da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the writ petition, while making it clear that if the writ petitioner chooses to avail an alternate remedy by filing appeal subject to fulfilling the statutory conditions relating to appeal, the same shall be disposed of by the appellate authority uninfluenced by the observations made in the writ petition. 8. It is this order of the learned Judge which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal on the ground that opportunity to cross-examine is a facet of principles of natural justice and non-consideration rather failure to communicate the acceptance or rejection of the appellant's request for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. Secondly, the failure to grant a personal hearing also violates t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
