Component Overseas Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuljeet Singh Sehgal v. Union Of India Through Its Revenue Secretary & ORS.

$~102 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6572/2026 & CM APPL. 32383/2026, CM APPL. 32384/2026 COMPONENT OVERSEAS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. KULJEET SINGH SEHGAL .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Mr. Akshay Allagh and Mr. Sumit Khadaria, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REVENUE SECRETARY & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Radha Shyam Jena, CGSC with Mr. Dumni Soren, GP for R/UOI Mr. Ankit Raj, Standing Counsel with Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for R-2 to R-4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 14.05.2026 1.

Heard respective counsel appearing for the parties. 2.

The challenge is to the order dated 30th April, 2024 in the FORM DRC-07 which preceded with a Show Cause Notice. 3.

The petitioner's claim is that, though a reply was submitted and a hearing was sought and offered, no personal hearing took place. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

In response to the above, Ms. Urvi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4, states that, subsequent to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, the reply submitted by the petitioner was duly referred to in the impugned order. According to her, an opportunity of hearing was offered to the petitioner; however, the petitioner failed to avail the same 5.

In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner has disputed the aforesaid fact of offering an effective opportunity of hearing and has drawn support from the communication dated 6th March, 2024.

6.

Having appreciated the rival submissions, it is apparent that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice was very much a part of the record and the same was also referred in the impugned order, but the least that was expected of the respondent was to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice in its reply and also to offer effective opportunity of hearing as the order impugned has adverse civil consequences qua the rights of the petitioner. 7.

Such conduct of the respondent, in our opinion, violates the right of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In such an eventuality, the order impugned is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed. 8.

That being so, the impugned order dated 30th April, 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

9.

We permit the petitioner to appear before the respondent in continuation to his reply to the Show Cause Notice on 25th May, 2026 with further directions to the respondent to decide the issue afresh after offering opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks thereafter.

10.

The petition, as such, stands partly allowed in above terms. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

11.

Pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 12.

As a sequel of above, all the consequential action taken against the petitioner in the wake of impugned order shall also cease to operate. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J MAY 14, 2026/pr/ok The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.