GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd.
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. As the question of non-granting of opportunity for cross-examination vitiates the order is covered by umpteen number of judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner urged the Court that on the sole point the petition is required to be disposed of by remanding the matter to the authority for cross examination.
(2.) Shri Ankit Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the said question of cross-examination vitiating the order is in fact covered by the number of judgments, which have been cited on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, by consent of the parties Rule. Rule is fixed forthwith in view of aforesaid premise.
(3.) Present petition has been taken out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers.
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6.3.2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 qua the petitioner (Annexure A);
(B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation and execution of the impugned order dated 6.3.2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 qua the petitioner (Annexure A);
(C) Ex-parte ad-interim relief in relation to prayer (B) above.
(D) Grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice."
3.1 Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the order dated 6.3.2019, which is passed on the premise that the demand for cross-examination of co-noticees was just modus for delaying the proceedings as the same is evident from the observations of the authority passing the order at page 122, which is set out herein below:-
"In light of above facts I find that the investigating authority brought out ample documentary evidences on record to prove the diversion and the responsible persons of firms, who were having full knowledge about their business, have deposed facts after perusal of these seized documents into their statements admitting their involvement in the diversion of AGU. The demand of cross-examination of the co-noticees is just modus to delay proceedings. In view of the above position the rejection of the request for cross examination of the witnesses does not violate the principles of natural justice." ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.