JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, C.J. - Similar set of prayers and facts are made in all the writ petitions, which are disposed of vide this common judgment. For ready reference, we reproduce the prayers made by the petitioners in the first petition, i.e. CWJC No.4098 of 2019 titled as Shri Raj Kumar Gupta @ Raj Kumar Sultania @ Raju Sultania Versus The Union of India & anr.:

"(a) For holding the Order-In-Original No. 16/MP/Ayukt/2018 dated 05.10.2018 and the Corrigendum being C. No. V(15)33-Adjn/2014/12895 dated 22.11.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 2 as being illegal, invalid and unsustainable in the eye of law.

(b) For issuance of a consequential writ or order or direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to grant an opportunity of crossexamination of persons whose statements are relied upon and also officers of the Department in terms of the reply dated 23/24.06.2015 and 18.11.2016;

(c) For issuance of a direction to the respondents to supply the entire documents/ evidences to the petitioner upon which they relied upon and passed the impugned order as against the petitioner;

(d) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we consider that preliminary objection raised by Dr. K.N.Singh, learned Addl. S.G., about maintainability of the writ petitions, in the teeth of statutory provisions of availability of an equally alternative remedy stipulated under the Statute (Appeal and Revision, Chapter VI-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944), needs to be sustained.

3. We do not find the impugned order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the assessing authority, under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), to be ex facie or patently perverse or passed in total/ utter violation of the principle of natural justice, warranting interference by this Court, more so when the mixed question of fact and law are involved.

4. It is not that the Statutory Authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure; resorted to invoke the provisions already repealed; or the procedure adopted and the order is in total violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. In State of U.P. V. Sudhir Kumar Singh,2020 SCConline 847, the Apex Court has culled out certain guiding principles for entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging breach of principles of natural justice. They are:- (1)Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused. (2)Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest. (3)No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice. (4) In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person.