Back
1967 Supreme(Del) 62
High Court Of Delhi
JAGANNATH KASHINATH KAVALEKAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 257D of 1960
Decided On : 03/30/1967
MOHINDER NARAIN, Prakash Narain, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY
The requirement of giving reasons is a fundamental principle of natural justice and is necessary to ensure that the decision is rendered according to the evidence and the law rather than arbitrarily or on extra-legal considerations.
Headnote:
SEA CUSTOMS ACT, 1878 - SECTION 167(8), 188, 191 - CONFISCATION OF GOLD - PERSONAL PENALTY - APPEAL TO CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE - REVISION BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS - NATURAL JUSTICE - RIGHT TO KNOW REASONS FOR DECISION - EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF APPELLATE AND REVISIONAL POWERS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was intercepted by Customs Officers near the Marine Lines Station, Bombay, and 90 bars of gold were recovered from him. Further enquiry revealed that the petitioner was the agent in Bombay for receiving and disposing of gold sent to him from Goa. The Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, ordered the confiscation of 1400 tolas of gold and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,89,000.00 on the petitioner under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The petitioner appealed to the Central Board of Revenue, which dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Central Government, which was also rejected without giving any reasons. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the orders of the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government were liable to be quashed for want of reasons. The court observed that the requirement of giving reasons is a fundamental principle of natural justice and is necessary to ensure that the decision is rendered according to the evidence and the law rather than arbitrarily or on extra-legal considerations. The court further observed that the right of a party to know the reasons for the decision, be it judicial or quasi-judicial, is one of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government were required to pass speaking orders giving reasons for the rejection of the appeal and the revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government were required to pass speaking orders giving reasons for the rejection of the appeal and the revision. The court observed that the requirement of giving reasons is a fundamental principle of natural justice and is necessary to ensure that the decision is rendered according to the evidence and the law rather than arbitrarily or on extra-legal considerations. The court further observed that the right of a party to know the reasons for the decision, be it judicial or quasi-judicial, is one of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government. The court directed the Central Board of Revenue to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
ALL the arguments put forth in the appeal and at the time of the personal hearing have been carefully considered, but the Board sees no reason to interfere with the order (Original) passed by the Additional Collector of Customs. Bombay"a revision petition tiled by the petitioner before the Central Government was also rejected by a very brief order reading --
"the Government of India have carefully considered the revision application, but see no reason to interfere with the order in appeal passed bv the Central Board of Revenue New Delhi"the petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid there orders.
( 2 ) ALTHOUGH the point that the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government ought to have given reasons while disposing of the appeal and the revision respectively was not dearly taken in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner having failed in his attempt to cover the said point by one or other of the grounds mentioned in. the petition, sought permission to raise the point. Since the point arises on the face of the orders and no further materials are required for disposing of this contention, I permitteed the learned counsel to argue it. Since I am in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel that the orders of the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government deserve to be quashed because of the absence of reasons, it is not necessary to pronounce on the other points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner as he agrees that all those points will be available to him in appeal before the Central Board of Revenue when the same is taken up for hearing again, The question, therefore, arises whether the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government were required to pass speaking orders giving reasons for the rejection of the appeal and the revision. In B. K. D. Aktiesels kab v. Secretary of State, AIR 1940 Bom 29; the Bombay High Court expressed the view, that an order could not he set aside merly. because it gave no reasons. The matter has been considered several times by their Lord ships of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. The latest decision of the Supreme Court is Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, Civil. Appeals Nos. 2596 and 2597 of 1966, D/29-3-1967 (SC ). In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with a revision before the Central Government under the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957. In revision the Central Government affirned the order of the State Government by a brief order.
( 3 ) FOR the proper appreciation of the decision it is necessary to read the order in that case
"new Delhi, the 22nd Tune, 1966. XX XX
I am directed to refer to your revision application dated 14-12-1964 and letter dated 28-1-1966 on the above subject and to say that after careful consideration of the grounds stated therein, t
