Court rules in favor of petitioner in fair hearing case, emphasizing natural justice.

The court found in favor of the petitioner, an industry based in Pune, due to a failure to provide a fair hearing during the pandemic. The court noted that the petitioner's requests for adjournments were reasonable given the circumstances, emphasizing the importance of natural justice. Additionally, the court disagreed with the 1st respondent's interpretation of the Supreme Court's order on limitation extensions, ruling in favor of the petitioner and setting aside the impugned orders. Specific directions were given for future proceedings post-lockdown, ensuring the petitioner's rights are upheld.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Failure to provide a fair hearing due to pandemic situation
- Disagreement with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding limitation extension

Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to provide a fair hearing due to pandemic situation:
The petitioner, an industry based in Pune, was issued a notice by the 1st respondent to appear before them. The petitioner, through their counsel, requested exemption from personal hearing due to the prevailing pandemic situation caused by COVID-19. The petitioner highlighted that they were unable to coordinate with their offices in other states to file a detailed reply and were denied adjournments by the 1st respondent. The petitioner emphasized the need for a detailed reply and a personal appearance before the 1st respondent to explain their case. The counsel also pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had extended the period of limitation in all matters due to the pandemic, ensuring the interests of the state. The court observed that the requests for adjournment were made due to the pandemic situation, preventing the petitioner from filing a detailed reply or accessing all records. The court found that the existence of an alternative remedy did not bar the maintainability of the writ petition, highlighting a failure of the rules of natural justice, which require a fair hearing. The court deemed the writ petition maintainable and ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned orders.

2. Disagreement with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding limitation extension:
The court noted that the 1st respondent had disagreed with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the extension of limitation for all matters, including those prescribed in statutes. The court emphasized that the order of the Supreme Court is binding on all citizens, tribunals, and courts, including those exercising quasi-judicial functions. The court found the 1st respondent's understanding of the law declared by the Supreme Court to be misconceived. Without delving further into the matter, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought, setting aside the impugned orders dated 17.04.2020 and 23.04.2020. The court directed the 1st respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner after the pandemic situation eases, allowing time for the petitioner to appear, prepare a reply, and present all documents. The court provided specific directions for the proceedings post-lockdown relaxation, ensuring the petitioner's rights while allowing the 1st respondent to proceed strictly in accordance with the law if necessary. The writ petitions were allowed with no costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were to stand closed.

---