Affluence Engineering And Enterprises LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And 02 Others

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 10.03.2021, issued by Respondent No. 3, which rejected their request for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon in a show cause notice dated 30.12.2019. The petitioner argued that this rejection was illegal and arbitrary, violating their constitutional rights. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the authorities had recalled the impugned letter dated 10.03.2021 via a subsequent letter dated 23.07.2021. This recall order stated that the petitioner would be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, but on a case-to-case basis depending on relevance to adjudication proceedings. The petitioner expressed apprehension that this condition might lead to arbitrary denial of cross-examination.

Held

The Court noted that the impugned letter dated 10.03.2021, which rejected the petitioner's request for cross-examination, had been recalled by the authorities vide a subsequent letter dated 23.07.2021. The recall order permitted cross-examination on a case-to-case basis, depending on its relevance to the adjudication proceedings. While the petitioner expressed apprehension about potential arbitrary denial, the Court acknowledged that the department had granted permission to cross-examine relevant witnesses. The Court expected the authorities to take a pragmatic view and directed them to ensure that the show cause proceedings were recalled at the earliest and that the petitioner cooperated in the proceedings, ensuring cross-examination was carried out promptly. The Court disposed of the writ petitions in light of these developments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for cross-examination of witnesses, as communicated by the letter dated 10.03.2021, was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 20, and 21 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the denial of cross-examination, particularly when statements of witnesses formed the basis of the show cause notice, violated principles of natural justice and their right to a fair hearing under the Constitution. They contended that such a denial would prejudice their ability to defend themselves against the allegations. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, initially did not explicitly address the merits of the cross-examination request but later, through a recall order, indicated that cross-examination would be permitted on a case-to-case basis, subject to relevance. Their argument, as reflected in the recall order, was that cross-examination should be limited to what is relevant for the adjudication proceedings.