2018 (10) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... recovery proceeding was initiated. He submits that, although, the time to prefer the appeal, and the extended time which can be condoned by the Appellate Authority have expired, none the less, the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. He submits that, the impugned order was passed ex parte. The impugned order was on the basis of a show cause notice dated January 3, 2006. He draws the attention of the Court to the show cause notice dated January 3, 2006 as also to another show cause notice dated July 27, 2005. He submits that, the show cause notice dated July 27, 2005 covers the same period of time for which the impugned notice was issued. Moreover, the show cause notice dated July ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in support of such contention. The impugned order should be quashed and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. The respondents are represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General. He submits that, the petitioner was given sufficient notice of hearing. The petitioner did not contest in the proceeding. The impugned order dated March 21, 2018 is appealable. Notwithstanding the existence of the statutory alternative remedy, a writ petition is maintainable. If the petitioner substantiates that, the impugned order is in breach of any fundamental right or that, the impugned order is without jurisdiction or is vitiated by the breach of principles of natural justice or is perverse. In the facts of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt are not disclosed. The period when the consultant was not available is also not disclosed. It is within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority to reject a prayer for adjournment. In the facts of the present case, given the number of opportunities provided for hearing, it cannot be said that, the adjudicating authority acted in undue haste in rejecting the prayer of adjournment. The respondents afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as will appear from the facts as narrated above. Three sets of dates for hearing were fixed for the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The petitioner did not avail of such opportunities. The authorities proceeded not to grant further adjournment on March 13, 2018. ....