Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) These four writ petitions were specially assigned to this Bench for adjudication. WP 25524 (W) and WP 25530 (W), both of 2016, were assigned before the other two. Hence, these two writ petitions were called on to be moved on 19th July, 2017. Mr. Choudhuri, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners in all four writ petitions and had appeared then for petitioners in those two writ petitions. His submissions were recorded in order dated 19th July, 2017, including reference of decisions relied upon by him. In view of assurance given by Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Department now, as then, interim order was not required to be made.
(2.) Mr. Choudhuri submits, facts are similar, in all four writ petitions, to give rise to same cause of petitioners. The main grievance is, contravention alleged by the show cause notices exposed petitioners to being subjected to quasi-judicial proceedings. The show cause notices were issued in year 1997. Petitioners were entitled to have speedy adjudication. Hearing notices came very many years thereafter, in year 2016. These writ petitions were filed. He relies on judgment dated 17th May, 2018 of a learned single Judge of this Court in WP 322 of 2015 [Surendralal Girdharilal Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors.], in particular to paragraph 32 therein. He submits, this contention of petitioners was upheld by this judgment in relying on judgment of Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak reported in, 1992 1 SCC 225. He submits further, the Department was respondent named in the judgment, which has been accepted by it since no appeal was preferred therefrom. Mr. Roy confirms that no appeal was preferred by his client.
(3.) Hearing notices impugned in these writ petitions are quashed to effect that the proceedings themselves are quashed. Writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed.;