The petitioners by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution have approached this Court with following prayers:
[9] {A} This Honourable Court be pleased to admit this petition;
{B} Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ in nature of mandamus or writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17th February, 2012 ({Annexure-"K" hereto} passed by the respondent o.1;
{C} Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant interim / ad-interim relief and be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 17th February, 2012 {Annexure-"K" hereto} passed by the respondent no.1; "
Thus, in short petitioners were aggrieved on account of the order dated 17/2/2012. This Court on 13/4/2012 had passed the following order.
"1.
Notice for final disposal returnable on 30.04.2012.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of this court in case of Keshubhai Mohanbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3)GLR 2548 and submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said judgment.
3. Prima-facie this court is of the considered view that learned advocate for the petitioners is justified in placing upon this judgment as the power for even issuing the second time notice based upon the AG's remark independent of any supporting provisions would indicate lack of jurisdiction to issue notice. The issuance of second notice is nowhere based upon any aspect under which there could be even remotest allegation with regard to collusion or fraud in assessing the duty at the first instance. Hence, the respondents shall file an affidavit, if any, by the returnable date. In the meantime and till the returnable date, no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the impugned order.
4. It would be open to the respondents to approach this Court for vacation/modification of order, as this order is passed ex-parte. Direct service permitted."
No reply affidavit is filed by the concerned respondent. Learned advocate for the petitioners has heavily relied upon decision of this Court in case of Keshubhai Mohanbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) GLR 2548, and submitted that non-speaking order is required to be interfered with, without being impeded by alternative remedy. The order impugned in my view is absolutely without any reasoning. On the face of it, it is indicated that the ground and version of parties have not been discussed at all. The Court, therefore, is of the view that it is in the interest of justice that this order is quashed and set aside, with a liberty to concerned authority to pass fresh order, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and or their representative.
The Court has not observed on merits of the matter at this stage in view of the liberty reserved to the concerned authority. Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top