TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. The story of Purohit that he had travelled on August 6, 1961 from Pandu to Shillong was disbelieved without giving him a hearing on the evidence collected, especially after he had insisted that the clerk who had made the statement should be examined. It is again not clear whether any explanation relating to the markings on the packages from which inferences were raised was asked for. Thus the High Court was therefore right in holding that the proceedings of the Collector of Customs were vitiated because the enquiry held by the Collector violated the rules of natural justice. Appeal dismissed. - 1862 and 1868 of 1967 - - - Dated:- 16-12-1968 - J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswami and G.K. Mitter, JJ. [Judgment per : J.C. Shah, J.]. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Calcutta he decided to bring the two packages to Gauhati, and on the way the motor-car was stopped by the Land Customs Officer and the packages of cinnamon were attached. Purohit relied upon the cash memo issued by M/s. Dayalji Bhanwanji for sale of two packages of cinnamon Jhunk Brand China for ₹ 1,998/18-. Purohit also stated that he had on August 6, 1961, travelled in a second class vehicle of the Assam State Transport from Pandu to Shillong with the two bags of cinnamon and tendered a receipt showing that he had purchased a ticket for that purpose. 2. A copy of a statement purporting to have been made by a representative of M/s. Dayalji Bhawanji was sent on February 3, 1962 to Tharad but not to Purohit. An enquiry was hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, in that behalf. Purohit by his letter dated February 16, 1962, urged that evidence which was not disclosed of the hearing and which was not relied upon in the show cause notice could not be legally used against him, and submitted that the ticket for his journey from Pandu to Shillong was purchased through one Madho who had accompanied him from Calcutta. He also claimed that he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the clerk who had made the statement. The Collector gave no hearing thereafter to Tharad and Purohit, and on May 24, 1962, passed an order confiscating the two packages of cinnamon under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with Section 19 as made applicable by Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a rule of law. If the inferior tribunal has acted without, or patently in excess of, jurisdiction, or has conducted the proceeding before it in a manner contrary to the rules of natural justice, or offending the sense of justice and fair play, the High Court would be competent to exercise its power to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the order of the court or tribunal, even if an appeal to a departmental authority or tribunal was open and the aggrieved party did not avail himself of that remedy. 5. On a review of the evidence, we have no doubt that the High Court was right in holding that the proceedings of the Collector of Customs were vitiated because they infringed the rules of natural justice. The Collector of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be kept present for examination. But neither the person who made the statement, nor the person who recorded the statement was kept present. The Collector of Customs merely recorded the explanation given by Purohit. After February 5, 1962, no sitting for enquiry was held by the Collector of Customs. It is not clear on the record whether on February 18, 1962, an opportunity was given to Tharad and Purohit to explain the markings on the packages. It appears that on February 14, 1962, a letter was addressed to Purohit setting out the information collected by the Collector of Customs about the journey by Purohit from Pandu to Shillong on August 6, 1961. Purohit protested against the use of that information collected by the authorities and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Dayalji Bhawanji was not made available to Purohit. The name of the person who made the statement was not even disclosed. Even though a request was expressly made, the person who made the statement was not brought before the Collector of Customs for examination, and even the person who had recorded the statement did not appear before that authority. The story of Purohit that he had travelled on August 6, 1961 from Pandu to Shillong was disbelieved without giving him a hearing on the evidence collected, especially after he had insisted that the clerk who had made the statement should be examined. 8. It is again not clear whether any explanation relating to the markings on the packages from which inferences were raised was asked for. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
