The principles of natural justice must be strictly adhered to in quasi-judicial proceedings; failure to do so renders punitive actions void.

1. This petition under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution is directed against certain proceedings taken under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). These proceedings were initiated for an alleged contravention of R.151 of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) framed under the Act and culminated in an order dated 6 July 1959 by which the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jabalpur (respondent 3), held that a part of the tobacco contained in 327 bags stocked in the petitioner's private bonded warehouse was clandestinely removed and replaced with inferior stuff and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.30,319/13 / as duty and Rs.250/- as penalty. The above - mentioned 327 bags of tobacco were also thereby forfeited but there was a direction that, if the petitioner paid a fine of Rs.500/- within 3 months from the date of the order, the tobacco would be regarded as duty paid and returned to him.
The petitioner prays for (i) a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings taken against him, including the show - cause notice dated 17 November 1958 and the order dated 6 July 1959; (ii) two writs of mandamus, one directing the authorities concerned to refund the duty and the penalty which the petitioner was obliged to pay under protest and to release the confiscated tobacco and another directing them to forbear from recovering excise duty on goods neither removed nor intended to be removed from his bonded warehouse and (iii) a writ of prohibition restraining them from taking any action in pursuance of the notice dated 17 November 1958 and the order dated 6 July 1959.

2. The petitioner is a tobacco merchant who, under the name and style of Nirpatsingh Malkhan Singh, manufactures and sells Gudakhu (tobacco used in indigenous smoking pipes) for the purpose of his business, he purchases tobacco, which he stocks in his own bonded warehouse. Since he holds a licence in respect of the warehouse, he is required to pay duty only on the tobacco actually removed from it. On 6th February 1958, the inspector of Central Excise, Jabalpur (respondent 1), and the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, Jabalpur (respondent 2), visited the petitioner's warehouse and seized therefrom 327 bags of tobacco (Annexure B).
A statement Annexure C then made by the petitioner was also recorded. When the petitioner repeatedly requested for release of his tobacco, the respondents 2 and 3 asked him to pay the full duty and 20 per cent, of the ex - duty value of the tobacco as provisional fine and penalty (Annexures G and H). Then, by a notice dated 17 November 1958, the petitioner was intimated that he had substituted crushed stalks in place of the original varieties, which he had removed from the 327 seized bags to the extent mentioned in the notice in contravention of the Rules, and was called upon to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed and the tobacco be not confiscated for infraction of R.151 and why the duty payable under R.160 be not recovered for surreptitious removal of tobacco from his warehouse.
Thereupon, the petitioner made enquiries and learnt that, in the course of investigation, the authorities had recorded the statements of certain persons. He asked for and obtained copies of those statements. Since he was being repeatedly pressed for submitting his answer to the notice, he filed his reply dated 7 April 1959 (Annexure M) only to say, firstly, that he could not be compelled to make any statement implicating himself in contravention of Art.20 (3) of the Constitution and, secondly, that he could not also be required to