Application Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Procedural Rules and Lack of Documents

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 35G CESA, 1944 due to deficiencies in the original application, lack of required documents, and non-compliance with procedural rules. Despite a request for leniency resulting in reduced fines and penalties, the applicants failed to rectify the deficiencies, respond to notices for compliance, or appear at the scheduled hearing. Following precedents and exercising discretion, the Tribunal declined to forward the statements of the case without annexures, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the application as per guidance from Rajasthan and Bombay High Courts.

---

---

Issues: Application under Section 35G CESA, 1944; Proper form of the original application; Reduction of fine and penalty; Difference of opinion among members; Compliance with procedural rules; Failure to file required documents; Proper course of action in such circumstances.

In the present case, the application was filed under Section 35G CESA, 1944 with reference to the Tribunal's previous order. Initially, the original application was found to be deficient in form and framing of questions, lacking attested copies of necessary documents. Subsequently, a revised memorandum was submitted. The Tribunal's order indicated that the case was not contested on merits but a lenient view was requested, leading to a reduction in fine and penalty. The key issue revolved around the presence of mens rea as an essential element of Rule 173Q and the applicability of Rule 173Q1(b) to the case's facts. Due to a difference of opinion among members, the matter was referred to a third member for resolution. However, despite procedural rules mandating compliance with documentation and appearance, the applicants failed to provide certified copies of required documents and did not appear for the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal directed the Registry to issue notices for compliance, but the applicants and their advocate did not respond. Subsequent notices were also ignored, prompting the Tribunal to consider the dismissal of the application if prescribed procedures were not followed. Citing precedents, the Tribunal noted that in similar situations, courts have upheld the discretion of the Tribunal to refuse to forward a statement of the case without annexures. As the applicants continuously failed to engage in the proceedings or adhere to the prescribed procedures, the Tribunal, following the guidance from judgments of the Rajasthan and Bombay High Courts, declined to forward the statements and ultimately dismissed the application.

---