Validity of Order passed after 16 months of conclusion

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3071

Case-EXCEL PRODUCTION AUDIO VISUALS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation-2016 (332) E.L.T. 254 (Bom.)

Brief Facts-This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport-II), Airport Special Cargo, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai.

Appelants Contention-Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in the present case the adjudicating authority heard the petitioners on 5th November, 2013 but the impugned order is dated 30th March, 2015, dispatched on 31st March, 2015 and received thereafter. Thus, it has been passed nearly 16 months after the date of personal hearing.
It is common ground that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized time and again that the orders pursuant to a personal hearing either by a court or the Tribunal or any quasi judicial body ought to be passed expeditiously and within a reasonable time. What could be said to be a reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case.

Respondents Contention-Mr. Jetly assures the Court that the order should be passed as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from today.

Reasoning Of Judgement-However, bearing in mind that the Revenue’s orders have immediate impact and parties ought to know their position in financial year to year, it is not proper that such an enormous delay should take place. It is not a case where any reason can be assigned for a hopelessly delayed order. They accept this statement, made on instructions, as an undertaking given to this Court. They clarify that each and every contention of the petitioner is kept open. They direct that in passing a fresh order, the adjudicating authority shall not be influenced by any of the earlier observations and findings. He shall pass an order after fresh application of mind to the controversy. In the circumstances, on this short ground alone, they quash and set aside the impugned order. The subject show cause notice shall now be reheard and readjudicated by the adjudicating officer. Meaning thereby, a fresh order shall be passed after a personal hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Jetly assures the Court that the order should be passed as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from today. They accept this statement, made on instructions, as an undertaking given to this Court. They direct that in passing a fresh order, the adjudicating authority shall not be influenced by any of the earlier observations and findings. He shall pass an order after fresh application of mind to the controversy. Rule is made absolute in the above terms, with no order as to costs.

Decision-Petition allowed

Comment-The gist of the case is that that in passing a fresh order, the adjudicating authority shall not be influenced by any of the earlier observations and findings. And, since in the given case the order is passed after 16 months of conclusion of personal hearing such delay is unreasonable and accordingly the adjudication order set aside and cause notice to be reheard and redecided within three months.

Prepared By-Neelam Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3071

Post a Comment

Query