1952 (1) TMI 21 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses petition for violation of natural justice principles; original notice deemed adequate.

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner were administrative, while the appeal before the Commissioner ... Quasi-judicial proceedings - administrative discretion - natural justice - cancellation of licence for breach of licence conditions - appeal procedure under the Excise ActAdministrative discretion - cancellation of licence for breach of licence conditions - Whether the Deputy Commissioner's proceedings and order cancelling the petitioner's excise licence were quasi judicial or purely administrative. - HELD THAT: - The licence and its general conditions made compliance with prescribed accounts and registration of salesmen a condition precedent to continuance of the licence, and section/rule provisions enabled the Collector to cancel a licence for breach. There is no statutory provision prescribing a judicial mode of inquiry or requiring framed procedures or cross examination before cancellation. The mere fact that the Collector enquired into facts affecting rights does not convert the exercise into a judicial act where the statute does not require a judicial approach. Consequently the Deputy Commissioner's inquiry and the order of cancellation are administrative acts exercised in the exercise of discretion to revoke a licence for non compliance with its terms. The admitted or proved failures as to accounts and employment of an unauthorised salesman were sufficient grounds within that administrative discretion to cancel the licence. [Paras 18, 20, 21]The proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner was administrative, not quasi judicial, and the cancellation of the licence was within his discretionary power and supportable on the proved breaches.Quasi-judicial proceedings - natural justice - appeal procedure under the Excise Act - Whether the appeal to the Excise Commissioner required judicial approach and whether the Commissioner's consultation with the Superintendent in the petitioner's absence violated rules of natural justice. - HELD THAT: - An appeal under the Act and rules to the Excise Commissioner, conducted with formalities of stamped memoranda and advocacy, requires a judicial approach and adherence to the rules of natural justice. The Commissioner, however, consulted the Superintendent (the officer who caused the trial purchase and who occupied the position of accuser) for clarification outside the presence of the petitioner and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet any statements made. Such behind the back consultation by the deciding authority is inconsistent with the duty to act judicially on appeal and with the requirements of natural justice. Nonetheless, on the facts the Superintendent's evidence related mainly to the short weight charge while other breaches (accounts and unauthorised salesman) were admitted or proved; accordingly, although the Commissioner's procedure was procedurally defective, setting aside the decision would be futile because the admitted/proved breaches suffice to sustain cancellation. [Paras 22, 23, 24]An appeal to the Excise Commissioner is quasi judicial and the Commissioner's consultation with his subordinate in the petitioner's absence violated natural justice, but the procedural defect does not warrant interference because the licence forfeiture is nonetheless supportable on other proved breaches.Appeal procedure under the Excise Act - quasi-judicial proceedings - Whether further appeal lay to the Board of Revenue in the present case and whether interference by writs would be appropriate. - HELD THAT: - The rules prescribe that when an order of a Collector is upheld by the Excise Commissioner no further appeal lies to the Board of Revenue; in this case the Commissioner upheld the Collector's findings, so no appeal lay to the Board of Revenue under the rules (as noted). Even if procedural infirmity existed before the Commissioner, the petitioner's failure to raise the specific objection before the Board and the presence of admitted/proved breaches mean that issuing writs of certiorari or mandamus to set aside earlier decisions would be futile. The Court will not grant writs which would be ineffectual to alter the outcome. [Paras 17, 25, 27]No further appeal to the Board of Revenue lay once the Commissioner upheld the Collector; and judicial relief by certiorari or mandamus is refused because it would be futile in view of the proved admissions and breaches.Final Conclusion: The Rule is discharged. The Deputy Commissioner's cancellation of the petitioner's licence was an administrative exercise of discretion properly supportable on admitted or proved breaches; although the Excise Commissioner's consultation with his subordinate in the petitioner's absence breached natural justice, interference would be futile because other violations justify cancellation, and accordingly the petition is dismissed with the interim order discharged. Issues Involved:1. Whether the proceedings before the Superintendent of Excise, Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner of Excise, and Board of Revenue are quasi-judicial.2. Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Matleb.3. Whether the Deputy Commissioner relied improperly on the report of his subordinate officers.4. Whether the Commissioner of Excise improperly consulted Mr. Matleb without the petitioner's knowledge.5. Whether the original notice for cancellation was sufficient.Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of Proceedings:The petitioner argued that the proceedings before the Superintendent of Excise, Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner of Excise, and Board of Revenue are quasi-judicial. The respondents contended that these proceedings are administrative. The court analyzed whether the proceedings required a judicial approach or were purely administrative. It concluded that the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner were administrative, as there were no statutory requirements for a judicial approach or specific procedural rules. However, the appeal before the Commissioner of Excise was deemed quasi-judicial, requiring adherence to the principles of natural justice.2. Opportunity to Cross-Examine Mr. Matleb:The petitioner claimed that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Matleb. The court noted that there is no statutory requirement for the Excise Authorities to offer anyone for cross-examination. The petitioner was given the opportunity to cross-examine the trial purchaser, which indicated a fair approach by the authorities. The court held that the petitioner could not later complain about the lack of opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Matleb, as he did not request it at the appropriate stage.3. Reliance on Subordinate Officers' Report:The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner should not have relied on the report of his subordinate officers without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. The court found that the Deputy Commissioner's decision to cancel the license was based on administrative discretion and did not require a judicial approach. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner's reliance on subordinate officers' reports was permissible in administrative proceedings.4. Consultation with Mr. Matleb by Commissioner of Excise:The petitioner contended that the Commissioner of Excise should not have consulted Mr. Matleb, the accuser, without the petitioner's knowledge. The court agreed that in a quasi-judicial proceeding, such as the appeal before the Commissioner of Excise, consulting the accuser without the petitioner's knowledge violated the principles of natural justice. However, the court noted that the other charges against the petitioner (not maintaining account books and employing an unregistered salesman) were admitted or proved, making the consultation issue less critical.5. Sufficiency of Original Notice for Cancellation:The petitioner argued that the original notice issued by the Superintendent of Excise was insufficient for cancellation. The court found that there were no specific statutory requirements for the notice format or content in administrative proceedings. The notice provided was deemed adequate for informing the petitioner of the charges and allowing him to respond.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, holding that the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner were administrative and did not require a judicial approach. The appeal before the Commissioner of Excise was quasi-judicial, and the consultation with Mr. Matleb without the petitioner's knowledge violated natural justice principles. However, given the admitted and proved charges, the court found no grounds to interfere with the decisions. The original notice was deemed sufficient, and the petitioner's application was dismissed without costs.