The primary contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is with respect to non-consideration of the objections and the lack of opportunity for personal hearing; by the officer who issued Exhibit P10 order.
2. On going through the records, it is evident that a shop inspection was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner and the Shop Inspection Report, Exhibit P1, was acknowledged by the petitioner himself. Notices were sent for production of books of accounts, which were replied to by the petitioner. The petitioner also had sought for photo copy of the documents seized from the business premises, which also seems to have been supplied by the officer. The said facts are evident from the various notices and replies produced along with the writ petition.
WP(C).No.10788 of 2014 - 2 -
3. Ultimately, the petitioner filed Exhibit P9 objection before the officer, dealing with the penalty proceedings, after looking at the photo copies issued by the officer. However, no personal hearing was conducted, and Exhibit P10 was issued, without any whisper about the objections of the petitioner. On a bare reading of Exhibit P10, it is evident that, the officer notices that two notices sent were returned with an endorsement "addressee left" and since the case was a long pending one, he accordingly finalized the proceedings by Exhibit P10.
4. At the time of admission, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader, that, in fact only because the notices were returned unserved, the officer had concluded the proceedings. In such circumstance, this Court called for the records of the case. It is evident from pages 81 to 83 of the records that the objections, produced herein as Exhibit P9, was received by the officer and the same is seen included in the files. Even if the notices issued were returned unserved, it is incumbent upon the officer to have considered the objections therein. The authorities under the Act are carrying on WP(C).No.10788 of 2014 - 3 -
quasi-judicial functions and such conduct of the officer is to be deprecated in the strongest words. In any event, since objection was on record and the petitioner was not given an opportunity for personal hearing, Exhibit P10 is set aside only for the said reason. It is made clear that this Court has not looked into the merits of the penalty imposed. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned authority on 10.06.2014 at 11.00 a.m. and the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity for personal hearing, the date for which shall be fixed on 10.06.2014 and intimated to the petitioner and acknowledgement received. The hearing shall be conducted and the proceedings concluded, at any rate, within a period of one month from 10.06.2014, the date of appearance of the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )