Court invalidates unsigned order, emphasizes statutory compliance in final orders. Union directed to re-adjudicate.

The court found that the draft order lacking the Joint Secretary's signature was invalid, emphasizing the necessity for statutory compliance in signing final orders. The Union of India was directed to re-adjudicate the revision application within eight weeks, with the petitioner granted a hearing opportunity. The court stressed the importance of ending the practice of treating draft orders as final and instructed the Department of Revenue to issue guidelines promptly. The writ petition was disposed of, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and granting the petitioner a fair hearing opportunity.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting revision application under Customs Act, 1962 due to lack of signature by the Joint Secretary.

Analysis:
The petition challenged an order rejecting a revision application under the Customs Act, 1962, passed by the Joint Secretary. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was not signed by the Joint Secretary. The court noted discrepancies in the original file, where the draft order was signed by the Joint Secretary but lacked a date and had uninitialled corrections. The certified copy of the impugned order provided to the petitioner did not bear the Joint Secretary's signature, raising doubts about its validity.

The Union of India was given a final opportunity to produce the original file, which revealed that the impugned order was unsigned by the Joint Secretary. The Union's counsel argued that it was departmental practice to treat draft orders as final orders, but the court disagreed. The court emphasized that statutory requirements mandate the Adjudicating Authority to sign the final order before issuing certified copies to parties. Consequently, the draft order in question was deemed invalid, and the revision application remained pending.

The court directed the current Joint Secretary to adjudicate and dispose of the petitioner's revision application within eight weeks, disregarding the previous draft order. Due to the significant delay in resolution, the petitioner was granted a hearing opportunity before the fresh order's issuance. The court stressed the need to end the practice of treating draft orders as final and instructed the Department of Revenue to issue appropriate guidelines promptly.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the Joint Secretary to review the revision application within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and granting the petitioner a fair hearing opportunity.

---