High Court sets aside order for breach of natural justice, emphasizes cross-examination importance.

The High Court of Calcutta set aside an order in original due to a breach of natural justice principles regarding the denial of the petitioner's opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness. Emphasizing the importance of allowing cross-examination, the court found the authority should have addressed the timely cross-examination request. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, allowing the proceedings to continue from the cross-examination stage. As the penalty order was vitiated by the breach of natural justice, the court did not direct the petitioner to provide security, disposing of the writ petition without costs.

---

---

Issues: Breach of principles of natural justice in an order in original.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta pertains to a writ petition challenging an order in original dated May 31, 2018, on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, through their advocate, argued that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness despite submitting a request before the adjudicating authority. The advocate relied on previous judgments where similar issues led to the setting aside of impugned orders. The department's advocate contended that the petitioner's non-appearance on the second hearing date justified the impugned order. The court noted the importance of allowing cross-examination as per principles of natural justice and highlighted the petitioner's timely request for cross-examination on May 28, 2018, which was not addressed in the impugned order.

The court emphasized that natural justice requires the adjudicating authority to permit cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Despite the department's argument that the request was made late, the court found that the authority should have addressed the request in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the adjudicating authority to continue the proceedings from the stage of the cross-examination request. The court also clarified that since the order imposing penalties was vitiated by the breach of natural justice and subsequently quashed, there was no basis to direct the petitioner to provide any security. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the right to cross-examine witnesses in proceedings. The court's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the cross-examination request showcases the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.

---