The court emphasizes the right to a fair hearing, asserting that failure to properly notify the petitioner violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order issued by the 2nd respondent. Though it is stated in the said order refusing licence to the petitioner under the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules , that a notice dated 07.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner, petitioner asserts that he had not received any such notice and further that he was not even heard before passing the said order.

2. The learned Central Government Counsel, upon instructions submitted that notice was served to the petitioner through the web portal and though legally, petitioner had been served with the notice, he did not appear for the hearing. It was also submitted that it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to verify the portal and appear for the hearing, and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Counsel, I am of the view that since by the impugned order, the licence as well as the authorisation scripts already issued to the petitioner have been cancelled, serious prejudice will be occasioned to him.

4. Though, as pointed out by the learned Central Government Counsel, the notice was served to the petitioner by uploading it in the portal, considering the entire circumstances and also the impact of the impugned order, it is only appropriate in the interests of justice that an opportunity of hearing be granted, once again to the petitioner, after issuing notice of hearing by registered post.

In view of the above, Ext.P2 order is set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after granting an effective opportunity of hearing by issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner by registered post fixing a date of hearing.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

sd/-