TMI Blog1967 (9) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Counsel on behalf of the respondent in each of the petitions the court made the following order : 2.In all these four petitions, which were heard together, one common point of law affecting the principles of natural justice arises, though the background against which the petitions have been filed as well as the petitioners are different. I will take up first for consideration Writ Petition No. 2115 of 1964 as the facts in that case can be taken as typical of the rest. 3.The petitioner is a licensee of a Match Factory in Ramanathapuram district. Under the Rules for levy of excise duty on matches manufactured in India, each pack of matches has to be affixed with banderols, which have to be purchased from the Excise authorities and affixed to the boxes in the manner prescribed by the Rules. Rule 68 of the Rules framed by the Central Government under the relevant enactment, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, prescribes the manner of affixing such banderols in the following terms : "Manner of affixing banderols Every banderol shall be so affixed that — the words and figures on the banderol specifying the maximum number of matches covered by the banderol are legible; the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise licence and that his continuance as a licensee of match factory poses grave risk to Government interests and is detrimental to revenue. In addition to the order of the confiscation of 16 bundles which contained the match boxes with the cut-banderols as well as a penalty of Rs. 100/- which had been already imposed on the licensee, his licence was suspended for six months. 4.The actual order suspending the licence passed by the Assistant Collector was, however, framed as follows : "I suspend 1.4 licence No. 160/62 held by Shri C. Sanjeevi of Jaya Match Industries, Padanthal under Rule 181(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for a period of 6(six) months with effect from 16-12-1964. N. B. — This order of suspension has been passed with the prior approval of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras". 5.The petitioner has attacked the above order in this writ petition and has sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the above order. 6.It is urged that on a question of fact, the authorities should have found out that this is not really a case of "Cut-banderols" being affixed to the match boxes, but only "torn" banderols, the tearing having occurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of Central Excise, the enquiring Officer, without getting the prior approval of the Collector of Central Excise who might in a proper case give a direction to the Assistant Collector that the punishment was too severe. But, on the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no such restriction in regard to the actual operation of the instructions and that, on the other hand, the punishing authority, in order to put himself on the right side of his Administrative superior, would, in all cases, submit the records of enquiry after he had come to a finding, to the superior officer for the necessary direction approving an order of suspension and that approval for an order of suspension will be given by the superior officer without giving a fresh opportunity to the licensee to show cause against the punishment proposed to be imposed. It would be really a punishment inflicted on the direction of the superior officer without the licensee having had an opportunity to make a representation, whether in writing or orally, before that superior officer against the quantum of punishment. That such a result can naturally follow from the provisions of Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the matter of assessing the appellants, asked for 'instructions' of the Assistant Commissioner, and ultimately it was found that he did not exercise his own judgment, but faithfully followed the instructions given to him by the Assistant Commissioner without giving the appellants an opportunity to meet the points urged against them. It was held that the whole procedure was contrary to the principles of natural justice. 10.In Leela v. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1966, Rajasthan, page 50) the following observations are found : "In the absence of a rule of law, the authority which decides the case must hear it itself and the authority which hears it must be the one which is capable of deciding it and if that is not so the hearing becomes more or less a farce or an empty formality. Where the hearing in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter is relegated to one authority and the power of final disposal is vested in another and the latter authority decides the case adversely to the concerned party without affording him any opportunity of hearing the procedure followed cannot be countenanced as correct and the decision must be struck down as being substantially violative of a basic rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
