Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons, and the right to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental principle of natural justice.

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issue of awrit of certiorarior any other appropriate order calling for the records relating to the orders of respondents 1 to 3, bearing F. No. 196/19/76-CX V, Government of India, Department of Revenue and Banking dated 11-3-1977, No. 14 of 1976, dated 24-1-1976 and C. No. V/38/15/2/74 CX -Adj. II, dated 29-8-1974, respectively and quashing the same.

2.The petitioner, K. Balan, is the proprietor of a match factory situate at Salapalayam, Pollachi Taluk, and he manufactures matches on cottage industry basis, after obtaining the necessary licence from the Central Excise department. On 5-9-1973, at about 2.30 p.m. the Superintendent of Central Excise, Divisional Preventive Branch, raided the factory. During the raid, it was alleged that 34 gross boxes of matches were in excess of the stock with reference to the stock register, that a man running away from the factory with 15 kgs. of pottassium chlorate was stopped and the material was recovered from the man who is alleged to be an employee of the petitioner, that the raiding party went into the tiled house situated in front of the factory and found a man hiding two account books alleged to have been maintained by the petitioner and they were seized and based on these materials, a show cause notice dated 11-2-1974, was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore II Division to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 21-2-1974. This was followed by an enquiry by the Collector of Central Excise. In the enquiry, some witnesses were examined on the side of the department. The Collector of Central Excise passed an order holding that the petitioner had violated rules 9(1) and 55-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, since there was excess of stock of 34 gross boxes of matches and that as per the two account books seized from the man in the tiled house situate in front of the factory, it was found that the petitioner had sold 12, 145 gross boxes of matches without paying the excess duty thereon to the extent of Rs. 45, 545.07. The Collector, the third respondent directed the petitioner to pay that amount together with a penalty of Rs. 2, 000 under rule 9(2) of the said rules. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Central Board of Excise, the second respondent was dismissed on 24-1-1976. The revision petition filed on 8-2-1976 before the Central Government, the first respondent was dismissed by an order dated 11-3-1977. This writ petition has been filed for quashing these orders.

3.In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is alleged that no mahazars were prepared for the recovery of pottassium chlorate, and the account books and, therefore, there is violation of the statutory provisions relating to the seizures. After the charges were framed against the petitioner, the petitioner requested that summons might be issued to all the persons from whom the statements were said to have been recorded by the department and they may be examined so that the petitioner will have an opportunity to cross-examine them during the personal hearing. Though the petitioner was informed that summons were issued to all the witnesses and persons concerned in this case, only four persons and the Superintendent were examined and they were cross-examined by the petitioner. The important witnesses Sethuraman, Peter, Thirumurthi, Sundarakumar, Kaliapapa Gounder, Subbiah, Mylsami and others were not examined to prove the alleged recovery and ownership of the two account books and pottassium chlorate. Sethuraman cited by the department as a witness, who is alleged to have written the account books, is a dismissed employee of the petitioner and he had sufficient motive to make a statement against the interest of the petitioner, Sundarakumar, whose statement also is relied upon to connect the account books with the petitioner, had not been examined to enable the pet