NASEERUDDIN DOSTH BEEDI FACTORY WARANGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration that the adjudicatory order No. 61/69 dated 16/08/1969 marked as Ex. A-4 levying fine by the 3rd defendant and confirmed by the second defendant trial by order dated 30/07/1970 marked as Ex. A-5, as illegal and arbitrary. The trial court decreed the suit. On Appeal, it was reversed and the suit has been dismissed, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) It is unnecessary to extract all the factual averments made in the plaint; Suffice to state that the trial court declared the Ex. A-4 order as illegal and arbitrary on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice and also arbitrary. To come to the conclusion that is violative of principles of natural justice, it held that the third defendant ought to have examined one Syed Omer who has given the statement dated 20/12/1967 marked as Ex. B-11 and his non-examination is caught in the net of non-observance of the principles of natural justice. It also held on appreciation of the evidence, pointing out the circumstances obtained thereunder that the imposition of penalty is arbitrary. The appellate court held that the civil court is not an appellate forum against adjudicatory orders and it cannot go into the merits of the case. At the enquiry the appellant did not ask for an opportunity to examine Syed Omer and therefore the order is not violative of the principles of natural justice. Thus it allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(3.) In this Appeal, Sri Prakasam, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the approach of the appellate court is vitiated by error of law. The statement Ex. B-11 is not evidence unless Syed Omer who gave that statement is examined as a witness. Non-examination of this witness constitutes violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore the finding of the Trial Court that the adjudicatory order is violative of the principles of natural justice is perfectly legal. In support of his contention, he relied on a Division Bench decision of this court reported in Union of India v. Suryaprkasa Rao, (1) 1967-1 An. W.R. 20 and B., Poyrnaiah v. Union of India (Finance), (2) 1967 (2) A.D.T. 141. The order is arbitrary for the reasons set out by the trial court but not considered by the appellate court smacked of error of law.