High Court quashes trade order for lack of hearing, emphasizes procedural fairness.

The High Court set aside the order passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade against the Petitioners due to the lack of a personal hearing. The Court found that the Petitioners were not given a fair chance to appear in person and show cause before the adverse order was issued. Emphasizing procedural fairness, the Court quashed the order solely on the grounds of denying the Petitioners a proper opportunity for a personal hearing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the order passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade against the Petitioners is valid.
2. Whether the Petitioners were denied the opportunity of personal hearing.
3. Whether the impugned order should be set aside.

Analysis:
1. The High Court noted that the order passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade against the Petitioners was challenged directly in a Writ Petition. The Court highlighted that there was an alternate remedy of Appeal under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Petitioners argued that they were not given a chance to appear in person and show cause despite a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The Respondents contended that sufficient opportunities were provided, and the Petitioners failed to avail them. The Court found that the show cause notice remained pending for nearly five years without adjudication, and justice demanded that the Petitioners should have been heard before any adverse order was passed.

2. The Court observed that the Petitioners were granted an opportunity to appear on a specific date, but they could not do so as their advocate was unavailable. The Petitioners claimed that they did not receive a subsequent notice scheduling another hearing date. The Court, without delving into this controversy, emphasized that granting one more opportunity for a personal hearing would not have caused any harm. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order solely on the ground that the Petitioners were not given a fair chance of personal hearing.

3. The Court clarified that the order was set aside only due to the lack of a personal hearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners agreed to appear before the authority on a specified date, and if they failed to do so, the authority could proceed accordingly. The Court directed that no further notice needed to be issued for the hearing date agreed upon by the Petitioners. Additionally, the Court stated that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of denying the Petitioners a personal hearing.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily revolved around the procedural irregularity of not granting the Petitioners a personal hearing before passing the impugned order. The Court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity to be heard, ultimately leading to the order being quashed and set aside on that specific ground.

---