1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2278 OF 2008 1.M/s.Premier Electrodes Ltd. & anr. ...Petitioners vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.S.P.Mathew with Ms.Kiran Doiphode i/b. V.M.Doiphode & Co., for Petitioners. Mr.P.A.Vyas with Y.R.Mishra, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 14th August, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge 2 the order passed by the respondent no.2 Settlement Commission Customs & Central Excise. The short ground on which the order is challenged is that the matter was heard by the Commissioner on 20.12.2007 and by an order made on 7.1.2008 the tribunal directed the Commissioner (Investigation) to examine the matter and submit his report. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Investigation) submitted report on 11.2.2008, a copy of that report was also given to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their point of view on that report in writing. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the respondent no.2 on 18.2.2008, and the order was made on 27.2.2008. The challenge to the order is that after the final hearing of the matter on 18.2.2008, on behalf of the Commissioner a report was submitted which was in reply to the comments made by the petitioners in writing on the report of the commissioner submitted pursuant to the order dated 7.1.2008. The submission of the petitioners is that the report dated 19.2.2008 submitted by the Commissioner (Investigation) has been taken into consideration by the Settlement Commission while making order dated 27.2.2008. However, the copy of 3 that report was never given to the petitioners because that report was submitted after the matter was closed for orders after final hearing on 18.2.2008 and the petitioners did not have an opportunity to rebut the contention in the Commissioner report dated 19.2.2008. The position that on 19.2.2008, after final hearing of the matter was completed on 18.2.2008, a report was submitted by the commissioner is not in dispute. The only submission made on behalf of the respondents is that though that report was submitted, the final order shows that the report was taken into consideration to a limited extent. 3. In our opinion, this is not sound and proper approach. If the report was totally irrelevant and was not to be considered by the Commission-respondent no.2, then non supply of copy of that report would not vitiate the final order. Perusal of paragraph 9.3 of the order, however, shows that the report submitted by the Commissioner dated 19.2.2008 has pointedly been referred to. One does not know what are the contents of the report and therefore, from 4 the order of the tribunal, it cannot be said as to what part of the order is based on that report and what part is not. In our opinion, a quasi judicial authority cannot take into consideration any material which is not made available to the parties against whom the material is intended to be used. In the present case, the report was admittedly submitted on 19.2.2008 after the matter was finally heard and that report was taken into consideration may be only to a limited extent for arriving at the final conclusion. In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the respondent no.2 is clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order impugned in the petition, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 5 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)