Gujarat High Court
Swagat Synthethics & 2 vs Union Of India & on 4 May, 2017
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/9510/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9510 of 2017
==========================================================
SWAGAT SYNTHETHICS & 2....Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
AMAL PARESH DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3
MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 04/05/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to paragraph 6 of the impugned order to point out that the same relates to three show cause notices. It was submitted that insofar as the show cause notices at item No.1 and 2 are concerned, the same would be squarely covered by the decision of this court dated 7.3.2017 in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others rendered in Special Civil Application No.19437 of 2016, wherein this court, in more or less similar set of facts, has set aside the show cause notice as well as the impugned order-in-original. Insofar as the third show cause notice is concerned, the attention of the court was invited to the impugned order wherein the written reply dated Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri May 05 00:03:07 IST 2017 C/SCA/9510/2017 ORDER 23.3.2014 has been extracted to point out that a categorical request had been made by the petitioners to cross-examine certain witnesses. It was pointed out that in the subsequent reply dated 16.3.2015, which is also extracted in the impugned order, the petitioners have reiterated the request and has also pointed out that it is well-settled that cross-examination of deponents should be allowed, otherwise the recorded statement cannot be relied upon. Referring to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority , it was pointed out that there is no reference whatsoever to the request of the petitioners to cross-examine the said witnesses. It was submitted that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the statements of various persons without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to cross-examine them, which is clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this court in Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Union of India, 2016 (339) E.L.T. 364 (Guj.) as well as in the case of Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016 (334) E.L.T. 302 (Guj.).
2. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners, Issue Rule returnable on 28th June, 2017. Ad-interim relief is granted in terms of paragraph 19(C) of the petition. To be listed on the admission Board. Direct service is permitted qua respondent No.2.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri May 05 00:03:07 IST 2017 C/SCA/9510/2017 ORDER (A. S. SUPEHIA, J.) zgs Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri May 05 00:03:07 IST 2017