M/S Dixit Battery Centre vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the ex-parte order and the pending rectification application. While not directly ruling on the merits of the ex-parte order or the rectification application itself, the Court directed the respondents to decide the rectification application as soon as possible, preferably within one month from the date of the order. Crucially, the Court also stipulated that the petitioner should be provided a personal hearing by the concerned authorities while deciding the rectification application, addressing the petitioner's concern about not being heard. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the ultimate decision on the rectification application and the validity of the original ex-parte order remain to be determined by the authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dixit Battery Centre, is challenging an order dated 28.12.2023, which was passed ex-parte. The petitioner asserts that they had requested a hearing through Video Conferencing, which was not provided. Following the ex-parte order, the petitioner filed an application for rectification on 23.03.2024, which remains undecided. The petitioner contends that this delay in deciding the rectification application affects their rights, as such applications are typically required to be decided within six months. The respondents argue that the petitioner failed to file a reply to the show cause notice despite multiple opportunities, leading to the ex-parte order. They acknowledge that the rectification application will be decided expeditiously if directions are issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing by the respondents when the order dated 28.12.2023 was passed ex-parte, in contravention of principles of natural justice and any applicable procedural rules regarding video conferencing hearings? 2. Whether the delay in deciding the petitioner's rectification application, filed on 23.03.2024, is in violation of the stipulated time period for deciding such applications, thereby prejudicing the petitioner's rights? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argues that the order was passed ex-parte without providing the requested video conferencing hearing, thus violating their right to be heard. They also contend that the pending rectification application, filed within the stipulated period, has not been decided within the statutory timeframe, impacting their rights. Respondents' contentions: The respondents assert that the ex-parte order was necessitated by the petitioner's failure to file a reply to the show cause notice despite several opportunities. They have fairly submitted that if directions are issued, the rectification application will be decided expeditiously.