The second point raised by Mr. Dutta which I will now deal with relates to the effect of the Corporation not making available the test report of Mumbai. According to learned counsel, the test report was in favour of the writ petitioner and if that was made available to him by the Corporation, he would have produced it during the adjudication. If that report was gone into by the adjudicating authority, there was every likelihood of the petitioner being exonerated from the charges of fiddling or tampering with the apparatus. I was shown two English Decisions, R v Layland Magistrates, ex parte Hawthon (1979) 1 All. E.R. 209 and R v Blundeston Prison Board of Visitors, exparte Fox-Taylor (1982) 1 All. E.R. 646 . In first of those cases the Court recognised a duty on the prosecution to inform the defence of any witness who was acting against the prosecution, so that the accused may produce that witness at the trial. The accused had not been so informed. The court held that the trial had been vitiated and there was a breach of the principles of natural justice.
First of all, these decisions relate to a criminal trial or a statutory enquiry, which is not the case here.
Secondly, I do not think that there is any obligation on the part of the prosecution, in this country to disclose to the accused the potential witnesses they were interrogating and supply the names of anti-prosecution witnesses to the defence. Far less is the duty of the prosecution in this country to hand over or give information about witnesses to the accused, particularly when the witness was likely to give evidence against the prosecution and for the defence. It is for each party to produce his evidence. It is no part of the duty of the other side to help the adversary to procure a witness or evidence. Thirdly, the Court was adjudicating the consideration of a show cause notice issued by the Corporation as to why the dealership licence in favour of the petitioner should not be revoked. In this type of cases such strict rules of evidence or the requirement of rigid compliance with the principles of natural justice do not apply. It is only necessary for the Court to ascertain whether the recipient of the show cause notice was given an opportunity to meet the case. It is also necessary to determine whether he was allowed to adduce evidence and whether he was given fair hearing before the decision was made. Of course, there is no denial that the Court is empowered to scrutinize the correctness of the decision actually made.
The second case, in my opinion, has no application. Enquiry by the Board of visitors was inquisitorial. The question was whether the prison authorities were in breach of their duty by not informing the board about a potential witness. Here as discussed hereinafter, the Mumbai report was not relied upon in adjudication.
Mr. Mookerji, learned Senior Advocate for the Corporation, submitted and I think very rightly that the ground on which the writ petitioner was adjudged guilty was that he failed to take adequate care of the premises and installations at the premises. After the Corporation finally sealed the installations in the petrol pump on 24th September 2011, the writ petitioner was found guilty of gross negligence in safeguarding the premises. It is for this reason that his license was terminated. The Mumbai report was not relied upon. In those circumstances Mr. Mookerji was absolutely right when he submitted that if a particular piece of evidence was not relied upon for the purpose of adjudication, it really did not matter whether that piece of evidence was disclosed to the adversary or not. In my opinion neither could it be said that there was breach of the principles of natural justice, because if a particular document was not relied upon in adjudication, the prosecutor was under no obligation to furnish details of or a copy of the said document to the alleged delinquent.
Neither do I think that the petitioner was not given notice of any charge against him that was considered in the adjudication.
Even if the adjudication order is considered through the lens of an administrative law lawyer it cannot be said that it was perverse. Neither is the order of termination disproportionate.
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Hazra Filling Station vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 17 August, 2015
Citation;AIR 2016(NOC)304 Cal