Detention under COFEPOSA - Fair Chance of Representation - Whether if a person was detained under COFEPOSA and due to which he could neither file proper reply nor appear for personal hearing granted to appellant, can it be said that Shri. Niranjan Puthran was given a fair chance of representing the case for appellants since at the material time, Shri. Niranjan Purthan was the only person who was conversant with the facts of the whole case and his presence was absolutely necessary at the time of inquiry of the notice - Held that - There was no reason to entertain the proposed question of law as the present proceedings were against the appellant and not against Mr. Niranjan Puthran - In the circumstances he had no independent right to be heard before passing of any order against the appellant which was a private limited company having five more Directors - It was pertinent to note that none of the other Directors have at any time even suggested that the appellant company was prejudiced in the enquiry due to the absence of Mr. Niranjan Puthran - Further, neither had the appellant pointed out how the absence of Mr. Niranjan Puthran during the enquiry proceeding has occasioned failure of justice. The CHA licence which had been revoked belongs to the appellant - The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer through an advocate - in the absence of its Director Mr. Niranjan Puthran (being in Jail) it was not possible for it to properly represent its case and the same resulted in prejudice to the appellant - The appellant sought cross examination of all persons save and except Mr. Niranjan Puthran - the statement of Mr. Niranjan Puthran which in the case was against the appellant was accepted by the appellant as the same was never challenged by the appellant. The issue of breach of natural justice was an after thought particularly so in views of the fact that the appellant took up this stand only after passing of the final order - It was not the case of the appellant that it was not given proper notice or that it could not appear during the proceeding leading to miscarriage of justice - Moreover, it must be pointed out that even before us the appellant has not indicated how the availability of Mr. Niranjan Puthran would have resulted into the charges against the appellant being dropped. In case parties are allowed to raise fresh plea after conclusion of original and first appellate proceeding, no dispute would even come to an end - Decided against Petitioner............................... Customs - Case Law
↧