Court dismisses petition challenging ex parte order, stresses proof of breaches & timely claims.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an ex parte order in the original case, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to prove breaches of natural justice principles. The court found no grounds for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution, highlighting the importance of timely and substantiated claims in administrative order challenges.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order in original based on breach of natural justice principles.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order in original, claiming unawareness until recovery proceedings began, arguing breach of natural justice principles. The impugned order was ex parte, based on a show cause notice from 2006, with a previous notice from 2005 for the same products and period. The petitioner believed proceedings were dropped after 12 years. Despite multiple adjournment requests due to consultant unavailability, the adjudicating authority set hearing dates. The petitioner contended that such delay warrants a writ petition, citing a relevant case. The respondents argued sufficient notice was given, and the impugned order is appealable but a writ petition is maintainable for fundamental rights breach or jurisdictional issues.

The impugned order stemmed from a 2006 show cause notice regarding specific products for a defined period, with a prior notice from 2005 on similar products for a different period. The petitioner received multiple hearing opportunities but sought adjournments due to consultant unavailability. The adjudicating authority rejected further adjournment requests, leading to the impugned order. The court noted the petitioner's failure to substantiate breach of natural justice principles, finding no grounds for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's inability to prove violations of natural justice principles. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely and substantiated claims in challenging administrative orders, ultimately upholding the impugned order's validity.

---