Case: Sinha Govindji Vs. Deputy Chief Controller Ofimports and Exports and Others

made on August 3, 1960. The argument on behalf of the respondents is that the provisions of cl. 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, have been sufficiently complied with by reason of what was stated in the letter of July 2, 1960.6. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances as stated in the affidavits of the parties we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has had no reasonable opportunity of being heard before the cancellation orders were made on August 3, 1960. The cancellation orders are, therefore, bad and must be quashed. Our reasons are the following.It is not disputed that the notice dated May 27, 1960, did not state any ground for the proposed cancellation; it merely referred to cl. 9 without stating on which of the four grounds mentioned therein it was proposed to take action. Naturally, the petitioner stated in its letter dated May 30, 1960, that without knowing on what ground the proposed cancellation was to be made, the petitioner firm was not in a position to show cause. So far there is no dispute between the parties, and it is not seriously urged by the respondents that if the notice stood by itself, it could be held to have given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard within the meaning of cl. 10. The respondents, however, rely on the letter dated July 2, 1960, in support of their contention that the petitioner has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation of the two licences.7. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted, not without justification, that the letter dated July 2, 1960, related to a different matter, viz., the suspension of the grant of further licences under cl. 8 for which also a reasonable opportunity to be heard had to be given to the petitioner under cl. 10. In its operative part the letter stated: "you are called upon to show cause, within 15 days from the date of this letter, as to why further issue of licences to you should not be suspended under cl. 8". It, therefore, related to proposed action under cl. 8. The respondents, have, however, pointed out that the subject matter of the letter as indicated therein referred to the notices dated May 27, 1960, for cancellation of the licences and it also referred to the earlier, correspondence on the same subject, viz., the petitioners letters dated May 21, 1960, and May 30, 1960; therefore, the, contention is that the petitioner must Know as a result of the reference to the subject-matter and earlier correspondence that the grounds given in the letter related to proposed action both under cl. 8 and cl. 9, even though the operative portion related to cl. 8 only. It is true that the contents of the letter dated July 2, 1960, should be considered from the point of view of substance rather than that of technical rules of construction of statutory instruments. So considered, it is difficult to hold that the letter asked the petitioner to show cause against cancellation of its licences, parti- cularly in the light of the contents of the subsequent letters of the Department which would be referred to presently. Even if we assume that it did so, what is the position? Within 10 days of the receipt of the letter (which was received by the petitioner on July 5, 1960) the petitioners solicitor asked for a copy of the joint investigation proceeding and the report submitted as a result thereof The letter also asked for other relevant documents in order to enable the petitioner to show cause. It said that the petitioner would show cause as soon as the relevant documents were received and it also said that 6. personal hearing would be asked for and prayed that in the meantime no further action should be taken. No reply was given by the respondents to the aforesaid letter of the petitioners solicitor till August 6, 1960, that is, three days after the cancellation orders had been made. The petitioner was not given a copy of the report of the investigation till as much later date, nor was any in- formation given to the petitioner that the copy would not be available and the petitioner must show cause at once. As a matter of fact the petitioner was told nothing in reply to the letter dated July 15, 1960, till three days after the cancellation orders had been made. the cancellation orders blandly stated that no cause had been shown, when in fact the petitioner had specifically asked for an opportunity to show cause. By their letter dated August 6, 1960, the respondents said that the matter would be considered on receipt of a letter of authority from the solicitor in proper form and on stamped paper, without stating that in the meantime cancellation order, had been made. without waiting for any explanation. on August 10, 1960, the solicitor submitted a written authority, saying that it was unnecessary to (, all for it arid that the two licences had been cancelled arbitrarily and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The correspondence, then continued with regard to the proposed action under cl. 8 and the petitioner challenged the correctness of the report of the joint investigation proceeding on many essential particulars including the alleged absence of machinery arid equipment. It, is not necessary to enter into details of that correspondence, because the proposed action under cl. 8 is not the subject-matter of the present proceeding. It is enough to state that from what happened after the receipt of the letter dated July 2, 1960, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has bad no real opportunity of being heard with regard to the ground alleged in the letter, before the cancellation orders were made on August 3, 1960. There was, in our opinion, a clear violation of the requirement of cl. 10, which embodies the principles of natural justice.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances as stated in the affidavits of the parties we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has had no reasonable opportunity of being heard before the cancellation orders were made on August 3, 1960. The cancellation orders are, therefore, bad and must be quashed. Our reasons are the following.It is not disputed that the notice dated May 27, 1960, did not state any ground for the proposed cancellation; it merely referred to cl. 9 without stating on which of the four grounds mentioned therein it was proposed to take action. Naturally, the petitioner stated in its letter dated May 30, 1960, that without knowing on what ground the proposed cancellation was to be made, the petitioner firm was not in a position to show cause. So far there is no dispute between the parties, and it is not seriously urged by the respondents that if the notice stood by itself, it could be held to have given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard within the meaning of cl.is true that the contents of the letter dated July 2, 1960, should be considered from the point of view of substance rather than that of technical rules of construction of statutory instruments. So considered, it is difficult to hold that the letter asked the petitioner to show cause against cancellation of its licences, parti- cularly in the light of the contents of the subsequent letters of the Department which would be referred to presently. Even if we assume that it did so, what is the position? Within 10 days of the receipt of the letter (which was received by the petitioner on July 5, 1960) the petitioners solicitor asked for a copy of the joint investigation proceeding and the report submitted as a result thereof The letter also asked for other relevant documents in order to enable the petitioner to show cause. It said that the petitioner would show cause as soon as the relevant documents were received and it also said that 6. personal hearing would be asked for and prayed that in the meantime no further action should be taken. No reply was given by the respondents to the aforesaid letter of the petitioners solicitor till August 6, 1960, that is, three days after the cancellation orders had been made. The petitioner was not given a copy of the report of the investigation till as much later date, nor was any in- formation given to the petitioner that the copy would not be available and the petitioner must show cause at once. As a matter of fact the petitioner was told nothing in reply to the letter dated July 15, 1960, till three days after the cancellation orders had been made. the cancellation orders blandly stated that no cause had been shown, when in fact the petitioner had specifically asked for an opportunity to show cause. By their letter dated August 6, 1960, the respondents said that the matter would be considered on receipt of a letter of authority from the solicitor in proper form and on stamped paper, without stating that in the meantime cancellation order, had been made. without waiting for any explanation. on August 10, 1960, the solicitor submitted a written authority, saying that it was unnecessary to (, all for it arid that the two licences had been cancelled arbitrarily and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The correspondence, then continued with regard to the proposed action under cl. 8 and the petitioner challenged the correctness of the report of the joint investigation proceeding on many essential particulars including the alleged absence of machinery arid equipment. It, is not necessary to enter into details of that correspondence, because the proposed action under cl. 8 is not the subject-matter of the present proceeding. It is enough to state that from what happened after the receipt of the letter dated July 2, 1960, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has bad no real opportunity of being heard with regard to the ground alleged in the letter, before the cancellation orders were made on August 3, 1960. There was, in our opinion, a clear violation of the requirement of cl. 10, which embodies the principles of natural justice.