Shakti Mehta And Ors vs Union Of India And Anr

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 19.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 31.08.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010530712025
+ W.P.(C) 11539/2025
SHAKTI MEHTA AND ORS .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Ashutosh, Mr. Dalip Singh
and Ms. Komal Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vedansh Anand, SPC with
Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. for
UOI. Mr. Ayush Gaur, Mr.
Ridhi Kapoor and Ms.
Shivranjani, Advs. Ms.
Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr.
Apurv Yadav and Mr. Naman
Choula, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioners, inter alia , seeks
issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Order dated
28.03.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by
the Central Government (CG)/Respondent No.1 under Section 129DD
of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1962’], in
the Revision Applications (RA) preferred by the Petitioners against
the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 25.02.2022 passed by the
Respondent No.2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
14:35:50
W.P.(C) 11539/2025 Page 1 of 8

2. In substance, it is the case of the Petitioners that while passing
the Impugned Order, the Revisional Authority did not abide by the
principles of natural justice, and as such, the decision rendered thereby
is required to be set-aside.
3. Pithily put, the brief facts leading to the filing of the present
Petition, arises out of the seizure of foreign currency from Petitioner
Nos.2 to 4 at IGI Airport, New Delhi. On 05.10.2016, acting on
specific intelligence, officers of the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence (DRI), Delhi Zonal Unit, intercepted the aforestated
Petitioners, who were travelling to Dubai. Although nothing
incriminating was found in their baggage, prior to personal search
they disclosed that foreign currency had been concealed in their
turbans and, in the case of all three, in their rectums leading to
recovery of approximately 3,90,000 EUR.
4. It is the case of the Respondents that upon investigation it was
revealed that the currency had been supplied by the Petitioner No.1,
who had arranged the travel of three carriers and promised them
monetary consideration for carrying the currency to Dubai. In their
statements recorded under Section 108 Act of 1962, the Petitioner
Nos.2 to 4 attributed the currency to the Petitioner No.1. Following
which, the currency came to be seized and disposed of.
5. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) dated 03.04.2017
came to be issued against the Petitioners, proposing confiscation of
recovered foreign currency and penal actions on the Petitioners.
Following which, the Petitioners submitted their reply, and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
14:35:50
W.P.(C) 11539/2025 Page 2 of 8

Adjudication Authority, upon assessing the case, by way of Order-in-
Original dated 31.07.2018, found the Petitioners guilty and ordered
confiscation of the recovered foreign currency together with material
used for its concealment, as well as imposed a penalty of
Rs.54,56,000/- upon them.
6. Aggrieved by the manner in which the SCN proceedings have
been conducted, the Petitioners had filed a writ petition before this
Court bearing W.P.(C) No.10197/2018 captioned Shakti Mehta &
Ors. v Commissioner of Customs seeking remand for fresh
adjudication with an effective opportunity of representation. However,
this Court declined to interfere, directing the Petitioners to approach
the Appellate Authority, seeking cross examination.
7. Thereafter, the Petitioners preferred appeals before the
Respondent No.2, however, the same came to be rejected vide
common OIA dated 25.02.2022. Aggrieved, the Petitioners instituted
four distinct RAs, before CG mainly on the ground that no witness
was allowed to be cross examined. However, the same was also
rejected by way of the Impugned Order. Aggrieved thereby, the
Petitioners have approached before this Court seeking our indulgence.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
8. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners, in support of his
case has made the following submissions:
8.1 It is contended that although hearing was initially fixed for
27.09.2024 and 09.10.2024, adjournments on both occasions were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
14:35:50
W.P.(C) 11539/2025 Page 3 of 8

sought for bona fide reasons duly communicated in writing. Vide
letter/email dated 26.09.2024, a request was made for deferment of the
hearing, preferably after Diwali.
8.2 Thereafter, vide second letter dated 07.10.2024, a further
adjournment was sought on the pretext that the counsel for the
Petitioners had met with an accident, leading to head injury.
Accordingly, a month’s time was sought, along with relevant medical
certificates.
8.3 It is further contended that vide letter dated 26.09.2024, the CG
was specifically informed that the undersigned counsel represented all
four Petitioners; yet hearing notices continued to be sent to the earlier
counsel, causing a communication gap attributable to the CG’s office.
8.4 Further, it is stated that specific requests for a physical, post-
lunch hearing were made on 11.10.2024 and 05.12.2024. It is his case
that the hearing was ultimately fixed for 3:45 P.M. on 06.12.2024, and
counsel duly joined by video conference at the appointed time, but
since the Ld. Additional Secretary (LAS), was engaged elsewhere, he
did not join.
8.5 Learned counsel, against the aforesaid background, argued that
the Impugned Order is rendered null, since the Petitioners were denied
an essential facet of natural justice.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
14:35:50
W.P.(C) 11539/2025 Page 4 of 8

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
9. Per contra , learned counsel representing the Respondents, has
made the following submissions:
9.1 It is contended that due process was followed during the course
of proceedings. It is his case that the Petitioners were granted four
opportunities of personal hearing, on 18.09.2024, 27.09.2024,
09.10.2024, and 06.12.2024. However, on first three occasions none
appeared on their behalf.
9.2 It is submitted that upon counsel’s adjournment request dated
07.10.2024, a final hearing was fixed for 06.12.2024, separately for all
four Petitioners; and that despite counsel’s subsequent requests for a
post-lunch physical hearing, the office duly informed him on
06.12.2024 at 11:48 A.M. and virtual hearings stood fixed at 3:00–
3:45 P.M.
9.3 It is submitted that hearings were held as scheduled on
06.12.2024, at which only the Department appeared; no one appeared
for the Petitioners, nor was any intimation of inability to attend
received. It is submitted that the reference to an 11:30 A.M. hearing in
the Impugned Order is a bona fide clerical error, the personal-hearing
sheet confirms the non-appearance of the Petitioners at the 3:00 P.M.
9.4 It is submitted that the CG remained available throughout the
scheduled window, yet no technical difficulty was ever intimated by
counsel; and that between 06.12.2024 and the passing of the
Impugned Order dated 28.03.2025, over three months, no request for a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
14:35:50
W.P.(C) 11539/2025 Page 5 of 8

further hearing was made by either the Petitioners or their counsel,
showing they had nothing further to urge.
9.5 Against this backdrop, it is argued that sufficient and repeated
opportunity having been given, the CG cannot be faulted, and the
Impugned Order, passed on merits after due compliance with natural
justice, warrants no interference.
ANALYSIS
10. Heard learned counsel representing the parties, and with their
able assistance perused the paper book on record.
11. The sole ground urged by the Petitioners is denial of personal
hearing while deciding RA, leading to violation of the principles of
natural justice, however, upon perusal of record this ground does not
survive scrutiny.
12. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners were afforded not one but
four separate opportunities of personal hearing between September
2024 and December 2024. On three of those occasions, 18.09.2024,
27.09.2024 and 09.10.2024, none appeared on their behalf,
adjournments having been sought and granted as a matter of
indulgence rather than of right.
13. Nevertheless, when a final opportunity was fixed for
06.12.2024, the CG accommodated the Petitioners’ shifting
preferences as to mode and timing, ultimately fixing virtual hearings
between 3:00 P.M. and 3:45 P.M., of which due intimation was sent
well in advance, at 11:44 A.M. that very morning.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
14:35:50
W.P.(C) 11539/2025 Page 6 of 8

14. The Petitioners’ assertion that counsel connected by video
conference at 3:45 P.M., however, LAS failed to join, remains an
unsubstantiated averment. It is contradicted by the personal-hearing
sheet dated 06.12.2024 placed on record, which reflects that only the
Department’s representative appeared on the aforesaid date of hearing.
Moreover, the Petitioners have not placed on record any document to
substantiate a fact to the contrary.
15. Moreover, the Petitioners took no steps for seeking personal
hearing from the CG during the intervening period from 06.12.2024
(when Impugned Order was reserved) to 28.03.2025 (when the
Impugned Order was pronounced). This conduct indicates that the
Petitioners did not pursue their remedies during this period with due
diligence. Such silence is difficult to reconcile with the conduct of a
party genuinely aggrieved by an alleged denial of hearing. It also
supports the Respondents’ contention that the Petitioners had no
further submissions to make in the matter.
16. Additionally, the isolated clerical error in the Impugned Order
recording the hearing time as 11:30 A.M. does not, by itself, establish
that no hearing was held. The personal-hearing sheet of the same date,
i.e., 06.12.2024 duly explains and corrects the discrepancy. Therefore,
the Petitioners cannot treat this clerical error as a foundational
infirmity that goes to the root of the Impugned Order.
17. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the CG failed to
comply with the principles of natural justice. The Petitioners were
granted repeated and adequate opportunity, of which they failed to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
14:35:50
W.P.(C) 11539/2025 Page 7 of 8

avail themselves through their own conduct. Subsequently, the
Impugned order came to be passed on the material available on record
after due compliance with procedural fairness. Accordingly, the plea
of nullity on the ground of denial of personal hearing is rejected.
18. For the aforegoing reasons, the present Petition, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026
s.godara/hr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
14:35:50
W.P.(C) 11539/2025 Page 8 of 8