Bombay High Court
GOLDEN BULLINversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS THRO. CENTRAL GOVT.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order was set aside as it violated natural justice by not taking into account the petitioner's show‑cause reply, and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, Golden Bullion, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 13 November 2025 issued by an Adjudicating Authority, alleging that its show‑cause reply filed on 20 June 2025 via the departmental portal was not considered. The petitioner argued that this omission violated the principles of natural justice and caused prejudice, seeking quashing of the order and a fresh hearing. The respondents contended that although the reply was filed, it was not transmitted to the adjudicating officer due to a portal management issue, but expressed willingness to comply with any remand. The Court observed that the failure to consider the petitioner's reply indeed amounted to a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the matter be reheard, giving the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with all contentions kept open and no comment on the merits of the parties' claims.
Issues considered
- Whether the Order-in-Original dated 13 November 2025 is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice for not considering the petitioner's show‑cause reply.
- Whether the order should be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision.
Subjects
- natural justice
- show cause notice
- procedural fairness
- writ petition
- remand
- order set aside
Judgment
28-WP-1111-2026 (C) .DOC
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1111 OF 2026
Golden Bullion …Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. …Respondents
Through Central Govt.
Mr. Brijesh Pathak a/w D. Jain, Yogesh H., for the Petitioner.
Mr Jitendra B. Mishra, a/w Sangeeta Yadav, Ashutosh Mishra,
Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondents.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 22nd JUNE 2026.
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Pathak, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and also heard Mr. Jitendra Mishra along with Sangeeta Yadav and
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents.
2. In this Writ Petition, the Order-in-Original dated 13 th
November 2025 has been put under challenge primarily on the
ground that reply filed by the Petitioner to the show cause notice
dated 20th June 2025 has not been taken into account by the
Adjudicating Authority before issuing the impugned order.
Page 1 of 3
28-WP-1111-2026 (C) .DOC
3. Mr. Pathak has submitted that upon receipt of show cause
notice through Departmental Portal, the Petitioner had submitted
its show cause reply through the portal. However, the observations
made in paragraph 4 of the Impugned Order-in-Original clearly
indicates that the Adjudicating Authority was not even aware of
such show cause reply filed by the Petitioner. On such count, the
Order-in-Original issued by the Adjudicating Authority has issued
in violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering
the case of the Petitioner, thus causing serious prejudice to the
Petitioner’s interest. As such the Petitioner’s counsel seeks quashing
of the Order-in-Original dated 13th November 2025 with a prayer
to remand the matter for a fresh decision.
4. Responding to the above arguments of the Petitioner’s
counsel, Mr. Mishra, learned Department Counsel, on instructions,
submits that it is a fact that the Petitioner had submitted show
cause reply through the portal but since the portal is generally
managed by the jurisdictional officer, hence, the show cause reply
was not transmitted and/or brought to the notice of the
Adjudicating Officer. Hence, the discrepancy.
5. In his usual fairness, Mr. Mishra has, however, submitted
that if the Impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remanded
for fresh decision, the Departmental Authorities would comply
with such direction.
6. The Petitioner’s counsel is also agreeable to such an order
from this Court.
Page 2 of 3
28-WP-1111-2026 (C) .DOC
7. In a matter of this nature, if the show cause reply had in fact
been filed by the Petitioner, the same ought to have been taken
note of by the Adjudicating Authority before passing the Impugned
Order. However, as has been noted hereinabove, due to some
communication gap, it appears that the show cause reply filed by
the Petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Adjudicating
Officer.
8. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to accept the
arguments of the Petitioner’s counsel that the Impugned Order is
vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, Order-in-Original dated 13th November 2025 is
hereby set aside. It is now open for the Adjudicating Authority to
consider the matter afresh after taking due note of the show cause
reply filed by the Petitioner and also after giving fresh opportunity
of hearing the Petitioner. The date of hearing may be notified in
advance to the Petitioner.
9. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
10. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on
merits of the claims and counter-claim of the parties.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…