2025 (6) TMI 905

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the show cause notice was issued by the 1st respondent on 16.02.2025, whereby they had directed the petitioner to file their reply on or before 21.02.2025. At that time, the Authorized Representative of the petitioner was hospitalized, due to which the petitioner was unable to collect all the supporting documents. Hence, on 21.02.2025, the petitioner had sought for adjournment till 08.03.2025. However, the respondent had granted time for filing the reply only up to 27.02.2025. Once again, a request was made by the petitioner for further extension of time till 08.03.2025. At this juncture, an intimation was issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contend that the impugned order is a well considered order, which needs no interference of this Court. 7. However, he had fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the 2nd respondent. 8. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 9. In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned order and the other documents makes it clear that initially, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 16.02.2025, whereby the petitioner was directed to file their reply on or before 21.02....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing extension of time to file their reply, appears to be genuine. However, without considering the said genuine reason assigned by the petitioner, the respondents had refused to extend the time limit for filing the reply and passed the impugned order on 10.03.2025. 12. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondent had neither granted time for filing the reply nor provided the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclin....