- (1.) In view of the attitude taken on behalf of the respondents it is not necessary for me to go into the detailed particulars of this and the allied applications. It will be sufficient to briefly enumerate the facts. There is a private company called Messrs. Shree Bhagwati Oil Mills (Private) Ltd. The petitioners in this application are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and are the Managing Agents of the said Shree Bhagwati Oil Mills (Private) Ltd. On or about the 17th January 1956 the Customs Authorities caused a search to be made at the offices of the Mills as well as the Managing Agents and the residence of the Directors, at premises No. 9, Jagmohan Mullick Lane, 23, Vivekananda Road and 140/6, J. N. Mukherjee Road, Salkia, Howrah. After the search was made, the Customs Authorities seized and took away a large number of documents, papers and files. A list of the papers and documents seized has been annexed to the petition and marked with the letter "A". There appear to be hundred of items, and I am told that the number of documents would be several thousands. Sometimes in February, 1956 about 36 show cause notices were served on the Managing Agents and similar 'show cause' notices were served on the Mills and some of the Directors of the Mills and the Managing Agents. By the show cause memoranda, various charges were made, of offences having been committed under the Sea Customs Act and under other related Statutes. The parties were called upon to file their written explanations within a particular time and were further required to submit, along with the written explanation, signed or certified copies of the documentary evidence on which the parties relied. It is staled that inasmuch as all the documents and papers had been taken away by the parties, it was not possible for the parties served with the show cause notices (hereinafter referred to as the 'parties') to file any written statement, not to speak of furnishing signed or certified copies, unless they had a thorough inspection of the documents and books seized and took copies thereof. Thereupon, all these documents. It appears that inspection was granted, but there is a dispute between the parties as to what exactly was allowed to be inspected. It is the case of the parties that inspection was only granted of such documents or books of accounts which the Authorities thought were relevant. It is not very easy to decide this aspect of the question, but I find that a letter was sent by the Assistant Collector of Customs dated the 26th May, 1956 to Messrs. M. G. Poddar & Co., a copy of which is set out at page 157 of the paper book. This does indicate that up to that time the Authorities were giving inspection of only such documents as they thought were relevant. The relevant part of the letter is as follows :- "The inspection and the taking of the copies of the relevant documents referred to in the "Show Cause" memos have been completed by the representatives of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Oil Mills Ltd. as desired by your client. They have now started taking copies of the documents which are not relevant to the subject matter of the "Show Cause" Memos issued against your clients. We have no objection their inspection of even these documents. He cannot, however, be permitted to delay the replies to the "Show Cause" Memos which as stated earlier must be furnished latest by 30-5-56".
(2.) The position, therefore, comes to this that up to the 26th May, 1956 inspection was given only of such documents as the Authorities thought relevant. But on that inspection was offered of written objections filed together with the copies as mentioned above of all documents relied on within a space of four days. After this the parties did have inspection for a few days; but it seems that after the 8th June 1956, no further inspection was taken. Here, again there is a dispute as to why such inspection was not taken. According to the parties, the Authorities did not allow inspection until sometime in November 1956, when inspection was agreed to be given from 1st December, 1956. Even in February 1957, correspondence had been going on and the Authorities wrote to the Solicitors that the parties had stopped inspection from the 8th June 1956 of their own accord. If now appears that sometimes in August, 1956 orders were passed ex parte . These orders are set out in Annexure 'B' to the petition and appear mostly to have been passed on the 9th August 1956 only two having been passed on the 29th January 1957. These were, however, not communicated until sometime in March 1957. This and the allied application have been made against these orders.
(3.) The first point taken is that there has been a violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners were not given sufficient opportunity to defend their case. As I have stated above, there is a dispute as regards the question of inspection and as to who is to be blamed for inspection having stopped. But apart from these disputed points, two things appear significant. I have already mentioned the letters dated the 26th May, 1956 and it is clear to me that at least in one respect the Authorities took an attitude which cannot be supported. The matters in respect of which cause was to be shown are certainly complicated and the documents seized were voluminous. It was, therefore not a reasonable attitude at any time to say that the petitioners, who were charged with having committed offences, should only take inspection of such documents which the Authorities thought were relevant. Clearly it was not for the Authorities to lay down the relevancy of the documents at that stage. There can be no doubt that the petitioners were entitled to inspection of all the documents which they thought were relevant and to take copies thereof. This appears to have been realised on or about the 26th May, 1956. But then, again, only four days' time was given, which, in my opinion, is not at all reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case Then again, there is the significant fact that the orders were made in August, 1956 and yet there is no indication in the correspondence even in February 1957 about the passing of the orders, which were actually communicated as late as March, 1957. Therefore, without going into the merits of the question and since there has been a violation of the rules of natural Justice I suggested to the respondents that they should give the petitioners, in all these cases, a proper opportunity of being heard. I am glad to say that having considered the matter the Authorities have agreed. But they have requested me to lay down certain dates within which inspection should be taken, otherwise they are afraid that the same procedure will be repeated and the matters will never become an effective. I have asked that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these cases as to what time would be suitable, and they have submitted that they would require time till the end of this month to consider the position, and two months' time for inspection and a month thereafter for filing their respective objection. I think that this is reasonable and I am also glad to record that the respondents have agreed to the same.;