ORYX FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 29-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 234 
ORYX FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 9489 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 29, 2010 
(G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Administrative law: 
c 
Bias - Quasi judicial authority - Show cause notice -
Quality complaint filed before the Development Authority 
alleging export of poor quality sea food by exporter - Issue 
of show cause notice and thereafter cancellation of registration 
certificate by authority in exercise of his statutory power under 
D r. 43 - Show cause notice indicating that the authority had 
completely made up his mind and reached definite 
conclusion about the alleged guilt of exporter - Held: A quasi 
judicial authority must act fairly and with an open mind while 
initiating show cause proceedings - If at the stage of show 
E cause notice, the authority completely makes up his mind and 
reaches a definite conclusion about the alleged guilt of the 
noticee, the entire proceedings initiated by show cause notice 
gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent 
proceedings are rendered idle formality - Bias of the authority 
which was latent in show cause notice was apparent in order 
F of cancellation of registration certificate - The order cancelling 
the registration certificate was non-speaking and was virtually 
no order in the eyes of law - Show cause notice as also the 
order of cancellation of the registration certificate quashed -
/
8 
Marine Products Export Development Authority Rules, 1972 
- r. 43, 44 - Principle of natural justice. 
Quasi judicial authority - Order of - Requirement of 
reasons - Held: Reasons are indispensable component of a 
decision making process - A non-speaking order is virtually 
H 
234 
ORYX FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF 
235 
INDIA AND ORS. 
no order in the eyes of law - A quasi-judicial authority must 
A 
record reasons in support of its conclusions - Absence of 
reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by 
disclosure of reasons in the appellate order. 
The appellant-exporter agreed to supply sea food to 
8 
a company incorporated in UAE. Prior to the dispatch of 
the consignment, inspection was carried out and the 
quality of the consignment was found to be satisfactory. 
The consignment was dispatched. On 12.11.2006, the 
buyer took possession of the consignment. After 10 days, 
C 
the buyer alleged that the consignment was of very poor 
quality. Thereafter, the buyer informed the appellant that 
it had rejected the entire consignment and it sent a debit 
note which represented the material cost and destruction 
charges and requested the appellant to settle the same 
at the earliest. 
D 
On 3.9.2007, the buyer made a quality complaint to 
the Marine Products Export Development Authority 
(MPEDA) and a claim of total loss arising from intentional 
cheating by way of delivery of decomposed sea foods, 
unfit for human consumption. The Deputy Director (third 
respondent) sought clarification from the appellant 
regarding the same. The appellant replied that the entire 
consignment exported by it was of standard quality. The 
third respondent convened a meeting with the buyer and 
the appellant for amicable settlement between them. The 
appellant in order to amicably settle the dispute offered 
E 
F 
to the buyer 25% of the value of the goods exported. 
However, the buyer refused to accept the same. The third 
respondent issued a notice calling upon the appellant to 
G 
show cause why their certificate of registration should 
not be cancelled. The appellant refuted the allegations. 
The third respondent wjthout giving any reason and 
without giving personal hearing to the appellant cancelled 
the registration certificate. Aggrieved, the appellant filed 
an appeal under Rule 44 of the Marine Products Export 
H 
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Development Authority Rules, 1972. The appellate 
authority upheld the decision of the third respondent. 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, 
which was dismissed. The instant appeal was filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A quasi-judicial authority, while acting in 
exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and with an 
open mind while initiating a show cause proceeding. A 
C show cause proceeding is meant to give the person 
proceeded against, a reasonable opportunity, of making 
his objection, against the proposed charge

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.