Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. The judgment in Natwar Singh's case does not support Mr.Setalvad's contention in this regard either. From a reading of the judgment as a whole and alongwith the judgment of the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench in that case, it is apparent that the petitioner therein sought not merely the documents relied upon but also those in the "possession" of the authorities which he believed supported his case on merits. It is to these documents that he was held not to be entitled to. For instance in paragraph 7, it is recorded that the appellant had, after receiving the show cause notice required the Adjudicating Authority to furnish copies of all the documents "in possession" of the authorities in respect of the case including the 83,000 documents, allegedly procured from a party in USA in connection with the case. In paragraph 7, it is further noted that the copy of all such documents "as relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority" were furnished. The fact that the appeal was dismissed, does not indicate that the 83,000 documents were relied wp1703-13 upon by the Adjudicating Authority. The fact is that what the appellant sought in that case was the copies of the documents "in possession"

We are not inclined to speculate in this manner and in this wp1703-13 regard. The entire show cause notice is not set out in the judgment. It is difficult to say that the documents other than those mentioned in the annexure to the show cause notice were relied upon. It appears that the 83,000 documents referred to in the judgment however, were not relied upon for the purpose of the show cause notice. This is clearer from paragraph 20 which refers to the petitioner's demand for documents "allegedly procured by Shri Virender Dayal ........" and "allegedly in the possession of the Directorate". The word "allegedly"