Dinesh Narula, son of Late Shri K.C. Narula, Resident of House No. 28, 1st v. 1) State of Jharkhand 2) The Commissioner of Excise, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6962 of 2016 with I.A. No. 8925 of 2024 Dinesh Narula, son of Late Shri K.C. Narula, Resident of House No. 28, 1st Floor, Sector-11/A, Chandigarh, P.O. & P.S.- Sector-11/A, District-Chandigarh Petitioner … … Versus 1) State of Jharkhand 2) The Commissioner of Excise, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi-834008 3) Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Ranchi, P.O & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi-834008 4) Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, New Collectorate Building, P.O. & P.S- Kotwali, Ranchi-834001. 5) Senior Supreintendent of Police, P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, Ranchi- … Respondents 834001 … CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Nitin Pasari, Advocate : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate : Ms. Priti Priyamvada, Advocate --- 06/22.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
Decision
"a) For quashing and setting aside of the ex-parte Order dated 01.07.2016 contained in Memo No. 1317/U, Ranchi, Dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure-9 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Licence granted to the Petitioner in Form-19, 19B, 19C and 20 has been cancelled in an illegal and arbitrary manner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Impugned Order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play as Petitioner has been denied the right of Audi Alterm Partem and thus the Fundamental right of the Petitioner has been infringed. Respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner and the Impugned Order is ex-facie illegal and is liable to be set aside." 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the excise licence granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the impugned order in gross violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that during the pendency of this case, a criminal prosecution was also launched against the petitioner arising out of the allegation made against the petitioner, but the criminal case has been dismissed as against the excise department on 07th December 2019 by the concerned Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the entire factory premises of the petitioner is under seizure of the respondents and the petitioner has suffered on account of ex-parte order passed against the petitioner without granting an opportunity of hearing. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has referred to the counter-affidavit and has submitted that vide letter no. 1201 dated 11.06.2016 the petitioner was asked to appear in person and submit his show-cause on 20.06.2016, but the petitioner did not turn up. She has submitted that the said notice has been annexed as Annexure- C to the counter-affidavit. She has also submitted that the matter was again taken up on 21.06.2016 and all the materials were placed by the Deputy Commissioner on 22.06.2016. The learned counsel has also submitted that it has been stated in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit that it was decided to inform the petitioner at his permanent address through registered cover and email, but the registered post returned with postal note that the addressee has refused to receive and the email was delivered. She has referred to Annexure- D to the counter-affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that a statement has been made in the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioner left India on 15.06.2016 for Australia to meet his daughter and came back on 11.07.2016 and as such, he did not receive the show-cause notice. In the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he was available in Ranchi till 10.06.2016. It has been asserted in the counter-affidavit that the aforesaid indicates that the petitioner was 2 present on 11.06.2016 and he might have flown to Australia to avoid arrest. During the course of hearing, it transpired that in the counter- affidavit a memo no. 1202 dated 11.06.2016 has been annexed fixing the date as 20.06.2016 for hearing and the said document has no receiving from the petitioner or any other noting regarding refusal to receive the notice . 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also submitted that an opportunity of hearing can be granted to the petitioner considering the facts and circumstances of this case, but the dismissal of the complaint case filed by the State against the petitioner has no bearing in this case. The seizure has taken place pursuant to the action impugned in the present case. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the prayer made in the writ petition, the sole grievance of the petitioner is that his excise licence has been cancelled in gross violation of principles of natural justice, that is, without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As per the counter-affidavit, a letter contained in memo no. 1201 dated 11.06.2016 was issued to the petitioner asking the petitioner to appear and file show-cause on 20.06.2016, but the perusal of said letter (Annexure-C to the counter- affidavit) which is memo no. 1201 dated 11.06.2016 reflects that no such date has been fixed in the said letter. 9. Upon a query of this Court to the learned counsel for the State, she has not been able to show the date fixed for hearing as 20.06.2016 on the memo no. 1201 dated 11.06.2016. The said letter also does not show the receipt by the petitioner and in the counter-affidavit, nothing has been mentioned as to when and to whom the said letter no.1201 dated 11.06.2016 was served. 10. In the counter-affidavit, another letter bearing memo no. 1202 dated 11.06.2016 has been annexed wherein the date of hearing has been fixed as 20.06.2016, but the said letter has no receiving of the petitioner and in the counter-affidavit no averment has been made 3 with regard to the memo no. 1202 dated 11.06.2016 much less any averment regarding receipt of the said letter. 11. This Court finds that the State has not been able to demonstrate that due opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. This court is of the considered view that the impugned order is apparently an ex-parte order and has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. Consequently, the impugned order calls for interference on this sole point and the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 for granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It will be open to the respondent no. 2 either to hear the matter himself or if the law permits, appoint appropriate Assistant Commissioner to hear the petitioner and dispose of the matter. 13. To enable the respondent authority to pass fresh order , the impugned order is set-aside and it is observed that the fresh order be passed without being influenced by any observation and finding in the impugned order. 14. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent no.2 on 12th November 2024 along with a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order and also his show cause reply as now the show- cause has been served to the petitioner through the counter-affidavit. 15. Upon appearance of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 shall do the needful in terms of the aforesaid direction and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the materials to be placed by the petitioner on record through the show-cause reply. The authority shall pass the reasoned order by 03rd December 2024. 16. The reasoned order so passed be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address to be provided by the petitioner in his show cause reply itself. 17. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that through I.A. No. 8925 of 2024 a prayer has been made seeking a direction upon the respondents to unseal and hand over the possession 4 of the factory premises to the petitioner along with non-spurious goods lying in the factory. 18. Considering the nature of relief sought for through the interlocutory application, it is sufficient to observe that in case the matter is ultimately decided in favour of the petitioner, there may not be any reason to continue with the sealing of the premises if there is no other legal impediment in that regard. 19. The respondent no.2 or his authorized officer shall also consider the aforesaid relief of the petitioner if such prayer is made in the show-cause reply and pass appropriate order in this respect also. 20. 21. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and I.A. No. 8925 of 2024 is closed. directions on the aforesaid limited point of violation of natural justice. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5