Revocation of NOC Quashed Due to Unfair Procedure; Respondents to Proceed with Show Cause Notice.

The HC quashed the impugned order dated 16 January 2024, revoking the petitioner's NOC due to procedural unfairness and non-compliance with natural justice principles, as no show cause notice or hearing was provided. The court allowed the respondents to proceed with the show cause notice dated 23 August 2024. The petitioner's request for damages was not addressed within the writ jurisdiction, granting liberty to pursue it separately. The judgment underscored the necessity of procedural fairness in administrative actions, making the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner without costs.

---

---

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in revoking NOC without show cause notice or hearing, lack of reason in impugned order, request for damages and compensation.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought substantive reliefs including the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the impugned order revoking the NOC, and to direct the respondents to reinstate the NOC and pay damages for the loss of business. The impugned order dated 16 January 2024 revoked the NOC granted to the petitioner due to alleged violations of the Customs Act, 1962 and rules thereunder.

The court noted that the impugned order lacked compliance with the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was granted, and the order contained no specific reasons for the revocation. The court emphasized that merely stating the violation of the Customs Act and rules did not suffice as a valid reason without specifying the alleged violations committed by the petitioner. The court found the lack of procedural fairness in the issuance of the impugned order.

The respondent claimed that a show cause notice was issued, but failed to produce it. The petitioner's counsel presented a show cause notice dated 23 August 2024, issued almost eight months after the impugned order. The court held that the delayed show cause notice did not rectify the initial procedural defects in the revocation process. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 16 January 2024, allowing the respondents to proceed with the show cause notice dated 23 August 2024.

Regarding the petitioner's claim for damages and compensation, the court declined to consider it within the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue this relief through a separate legal action. The court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner without any order for costs, directing all parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative decisions and emphasized the need for procedural fairness in such matters.

---