Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the final order passed by the Assistant Collector before expiry of the time granted in the show cause notice and without affording a proper hearing was liable to be quashed, and whether the consequential order issued by the Superintendent could survive.
Analysis: The proceedings showed that the show cause notice granted thirty days for reply, yet the final order was passed before that period expired. The record also disclosed an infirmity in the purported representation said to have been made on behalf of the petitioner, which was later admitted to be an oversight. In these circumstances, the adjudication was made without a fair and effective opportunity and without compliance with the requirements of natural justice. The consequential communication of the Superintendent was entirely based on the primary adjudication order and therefore depended on its validity. Since the main order itself was procedurally unsustainable, the derivative proceedings could not stand.
Conclusion: The final adjudication dated 31-12-1992 was quashed for violation of natural justice, the consequential proceeding dated 6-1-1993 was also quashed, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after issuing a fresh notice and granting proper opportunity.