WP(C) 4151/2007 Page No.1 of 3 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.05.2010 + WP(C) 4151/2007 NARESH JAIN ..... Petitioner - versus – UOI ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner : Mr Naveen Malhotra For the Respondent/UOI : Mr Rakesh Tikku. For the Respondent/Customs : Mr Mukesh Anand CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard before the order in revision No. 124/2007 dated 20.02.2007 was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance in a revision in respect of the order-in-appeal No. CC(A)/AIR/362/D-I/05 dated 05.09.2005. 2. In the impugned order, the Joint Secretary has observed in paragraph 6.1 that the Government has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions. But, as per the affidavit filed by Mr Naveen Malhotra, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, no written WP(C) 4151/2007 Page No.2 of 3 submissions were filed nor any oral submissions were made before the said Joint Secretary in respect of the said revision application. He has made a categorical statement that on 29.09.2006, when the matter is said to have been heard, he was not present and did not make any submissions before the said Joint Secretary. The document at page 135 of our paper book, which purports to be a record of personal hearing, does not inspire much confidence. There are several dates mentioned in the said document and there is only one signature of the said Mr Naveen Malhotra. According to Mr Naveen Malhotra, he attended the proceedings on one date but he does not recall on which date he signed the said record of personal hearing. However, he is certain that he did not sign it on 29.09.2006. We are also of the view that when several dates are mentioned, then it cannot be taken that when a person has signed once it would relate to all the dates. The logic is very clear. If on 08.03.2006, which is the first date mentioned therein, the signature of Mr Naveen Malhotra was taken, then obviously no signatures were taken on the other dates mentioned in the record of personal hearing. And, if we assume that the signature was not taken on 08.03.2006, which is the first date of hearing, then the document itself becomes very doubtful. Therefore, we cannot place any reliance on the said document which purports to be a record of personal hearing. Consequently, we are left with only the affidavit which has been filed by Mr Naveen Malhotra indicating that no personal hearing as such was granted to him and no oral submissions were made by him before the said Joint Secretary nor were any written submissions filed by him. WP(C) 4151/2007 Page No.3 of 3 3. The only conclusion, therefore, is that an opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order has to go on this ground alone. We set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the concerned revisional authority for adjudication afresh, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In order to obviate any difficulty with regard to issuance of notice etc., we direct the petitioner and/ or his authorized representative to appear before the said revisional authority, in the first instance, on 07.07.2010 at 3:30 pm. We also make it clear that the revisional authority shall keep a record of the personal hearing on each date of hearing and get it signed by the persons who attend the hearing. 4. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The same stands disposed of. Dasti to all the parties. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J MAY 13, 2010 SR