Bombay High Court: In the present case, petitioners prayed that this Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution calling for the records pertaining to petitioner’s case and after going into the validity and legality, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22-07-2024 and the show cause notice dated 07-12-2023.
The Division Bench of M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ., opined that if petitioners genuinely regarded the show cause notice as vague or if there were any real difficulties in responding to the allegations in the show cause notice, it was expected that petitioners challenged the show cause notice at the earliest instance, however, petitioners filed a detailed response without making any serious grievance about the alleged vagueness in the show cause notice. The Court held that the allegations about vagueness and consequent failure of principles of natural justice were wholly misconceived, and thus, no case was made out to entertain the present petition. The Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 5,00,000 payable by petitioners to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority.
Petitioners submitted that the show cause notice dated 07-12-2023 was vague and bereft of the relevant particulars, because of which, they were deprived of an effective opportunity to respond or otherwise defend themselves. Thus, it was stated that there was a violation of principles of natural justice and the show cause notice dated 07-12-2023 was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the order dated 22-07-2024 made on adjudicating the show cause notice dated 07-12-2023 was a nullity.
The Court took note of the show cause notice dated 07-12-2023 and opined that it was not at all vague but rather contained all material particulars which gave petitioners a very clear idea about the case that they were required to meet with. The Court stated that petitioners made no serious grievance of any alleged vagueness in response to the notice. The Court also stated that the impugned show cause notice referred to the intelligence inputs based upon which the impugned show cause notice was issued and there was detailed reference to several factual aspects, legal provisions, notifications, and circulars proposed to be relied upon. Further, the grounds on which the show cause notice was issued were also mentioned in the show cause notice itself. Thus, the allegation of vagueness was an afterthought besides being frivolous and was raised only to avoid resorting to the alternate remedial appeal available to petitioners.
The Court noted that the record suggested that petitioners only tried to “take a chance in the matter” and petitioners had filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The Court stated that it was apparent that petitioners were not in the least prejudiced in either understanding revenue case or responding to the multiple allegations in the show cause notice and the reply nowhere alleged any vagueness in the show cause notice or the corresponding difficulties allegedly faced by petitioners in responding to the show cause notice.
The Court stated that the contention that the order dated 22-07-2024 wherein it was admitted that the show cause notice was vague was misconceived and there was no such admission in the order. The order was quite detailed and must be construed holistically. The Court opined that it could not examine the merits of the order dated 22-07-2024 as petitioners were proposed to be relegated to the alternate remedy of appeal in the present case.
The Court opined that if petitioners genuinely regarded the show cause notice as vague or if there were any real difficulties in responding to the allegations in the show cause notice, it was expected that petitioners challenged the show cause notice at the earliest instance, however, petitioners filed a detailed response without making any serious grievance about the alleged vagueness in the show cause notice. The present petition was instituted to question the show cause notice dated 07-12-2023 only after the show cause notice was adjudicated and the order dated 22-07-2024 was made.
The Court relied on Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court explained that “writ petitions may be entertained against the show cause notices where the Petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice; or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or vires of the Act is challenged. Of late, almost as a matter of routine in Petitions to challenge show cause notices, a challenge is thrown to some provisions of the statute”.
The Court relied on Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440; Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters Assn., (2019) 20 SCC 446; Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman CBDT, (2004) 6 SCC 431; and Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India, (2020) 12 SCC 808 and held that it was satisfied that the present petition warranted dismissal with exemplary costs.
The Court held that the allegations about the vagueness and consequent failure of principles of natural justice were wholly misconceived, and thus, no case was made out to entertain the present petition. The Court opined that the objective of instituting such petitions was to wriggle out some orders by taking undue advantage of the pressure on the Court’s docket or to keep otherwise such matters pending and delay the adjudication proceedings by citing the pendency of the petitions. The Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 5,00,000 payable by petitioners to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within four weeks of the date of this order.
[Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3355, decided on 14-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Vishal Agrawal, a/w Abhishek Deodhar, Rishabh Jain, i/b. TLC Legal LLP
For the Respondents: Jitendra B. Mishra, a/w Ashutosh Mishra, Sangeeta Yadav, Rupesh Dubey, for Respondents1, 3, 4 — UOI; Satyaprakash Sharma, a/w Megha Bajoria, for Respondent 2.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
