Judgment :- This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the Collector of Customs, Madras imposing a fine of Rs. 10, 000 upon the petitioner on the ground that the order is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction and that the procedure that was followed for its imposition is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 2.There is not much of dispute as to the facts which are crucial to this petition and I will proceed to state them briefly. 3.In or about June, 1948 the petitioner who is an exporter among others, of handloom piece-goods presented a shipping bill in respect of 100 bales represented to be of handloom piece-goods for shipment to Pakistan. At that time under the orders of Government, though handloom goods were permitted to be exported there was a prohibition against the exportation of power-loom textiles. The Customs authorities suspected that some of these bales contained power-loom goods and selected seven out of these bales for the purpose of examination. They were the bales numbered as 1201 to 1204, 834, 842 and 843. The examination by the Customs Authorities disclosed that there was no objection to the exportation of six of these bales but the bale No. 1202 was found to contain power-loom goods. An order was thereupon passed confiscating this bale No. 1202 with a direction that it would be returned to the petitioner on payment of a fine of Rs. 50. This order which was passed on 26th June, 1948 fixed a period of two months for the payment of this fine and redemption. This fine was never paid with the result the confiscated bale No. 1202 continued to remain in the port premises. I might mention in passing that though no objection was taken to the other six bales, they too were not removed from the port premises by the petitioner but they continued to remain there. It is the case of the petitioner that he made a payment to his broker one Siddique Sahib of this sum of Rs. 50 which had been imposed as a penalty, to enable the broker to pay it to the Customs Authorities and to redeem the bales but that this broker did not do so. It is the case of the petitioner that he made a payment to his broker one Siddique Sahib of this sum of Rs. 50 which had been imposed as a penalty, to enable the broker to pay it to the Customs Authorities and to redeem the bales but that this broker did not do so. 4.The next shipment was in July, 1948 and it is now the common case that bale No. 1202 was among those which were shipped by "s.s. Gazana" which carried this consignment. The bale No. being shown among the bales to be exported in the bill of entry prepared by the broker. Naturally the Customs Authorities could not detect the identity of this bale at that time with the result that the bale No. 1202 was despatched while other bales, among them No. 1204, containing handloom goods were detained in .the harbour. As a matter of fact, nobody seems to have noticed this at that time. 5.As the confiscated bale 1202 had not been returned to the petitioner, he wrote a letter to the Chief Appraiser of Customs for permission to pay the penalty of Rs. 50 and take delivery of this bale, even after the expiry of two months for payment under the order dated the 26th June, 1948. The petitioner explained that he had made the necessary payment to his broker but that the latter had failed to make the payment to the Customs Authorities in his turn. It was at this stage that it was discovered that bale No. 1202 had been shipped per s.s. Gazana and that goods which had been prohibited from being exported had managed to leave the port. When this became known the petitioner addressed a letter to the Assistant Collector of Customs on 21st January, 1949 in which he pointed out that bale No. 1202 which had been detained for non-payment of penalty had been cleared from the harbour by mistake by his broker for shipment to Pakistan. After expressing regret for this, the petitioner requested that the mistake might be viewed leniently and a nominal penalty imposed. He also stated that he was prepared to pay the fine imposed. After expressing regret for this, the petitioner requested that the mistake might be viewed leniently and a nominal penalty imposed. He also stated that he was prepared to pay the fine imposed. This letter was neither acknowledged nor replied to with the result that the petitioner had to write another letter dated 24th May, 1949 making the same request, as also that the bales in the custody of the Customs authorities, which had not been taken delivery of might be returned to him. There was no reply to this either nor even acknowledgment. The petitioner wrote another letter on 16th June, 1949 and along with that enclosed the invoices in respect of bale Nos. 1202 to 1204. 6.It is a matter of regret that though six bales belonging to the petitioner were lying in the custody of the Customs Authorities and they were naturally deteriorating, these letters were not replied to immediately and action taken on them by the Customs authorities. Learned Assistant Special Government Pleader who perused the office file was not able to offer me any explanation for this conduct in a public office and I hope that in their dealings with the public, the department will show more appreciation of their responsibility. 7.On 7-3-1950 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Collector of Customs in which he set out the history of these shipments, gave a list the bales which had not been released by the Customs authorities and how they were deteriorating from day to day and requested that they might be delivered to him at an early date. The reply to that was the order which is now sought to be quashed in this writ petition. 8.This order dated 22-4-1950 in its preliminary portion gives the history of how bale No. 1202 came to be in the Customs godown. It says: "7 bales were detained as they were suspected to contain power-loom goods which were controlled at that time. On examination, bale No. 1202 alone was found to contain power-loom goods and as it contravened the Export Trade Control Regulations it was confiscated and a fine of Rs 50 in lieu of confiscation was imposed. The fine was not paid and all the seven bales were lying in Madras Port Trust premises". On examination, bale No. 1202 alone was found to contain power-loom goods and as it contravened the Export Trade Control Regulations it was confiscated and a fine of Rs 50 in lieu of confiscation was imposed. The fine was not paid and all the seven bales were lying in Madras Port Trust premises". It then proceeds to state the following as part of statement of facts : "In July, 1948, the same broker presented on behalf of the same exporter another shipping bill-for six bales (Nos. 1201 to 1203, 834, 842 & 843) handloom piece-goods and managed to ship five bales leaving out bale No. 834 which was missing. The clearing agents in collusion with the exporter thus managed to ship bale No. 1202. This bale contained power- loom goods which had been confiscated by Government and the export of which without a licence was prohibited. An offence under Section 19, Sea Customs Act, punishable under Section 167(8) ibid is therefore disclosed."Then the order proceeds : "The clearing broker and the shippers are the only persons who knew of the identity of the detained goods including the bale containing prohibited powerloom goods viz-, 1202 and the fact of their having mentioned this bale on the shipping bill prima facie suggests that their intention was to ship the bale. This combined with the fact that the prohibited goods were actually shipped, clearly establishes the exporter's mala fide. I therefore impose a penalty of Rs. 10, 000 on the exporters under section 167(8) Sea Customs Act. This order was signed by the Collector on 22-4-1949 but was actually despatched on 15-5-1950. 9.It is necessary to state one further fact before dealing with the contentions raised in the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of the Collector of Customs to the Central Board of Revenue which is the Chief Customs Authority under section 188 of the Sea Customs Act and as preliminary thereto paid the fine imposed upon him. This appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 8-8-1952. 10.Thereupon the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the order of the Collector of Customs on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. This appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 8-8-1952. 10.Thereupon the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the order of the Collector of Customs on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. It is admitted before me that the Collector before passing the impugned order imposing the fine did not give any notice to the petitioner to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed and a fortiori there was no enquiry in regard to this matter. As this order was passed without notice and without enquiry, on this one ground alone it is clear that it cannot stand, for it was passed contravening every principle of natural justice. 11.Learned counsel for the respondent however raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition on the ground that as the petitioner had filed an appeal and the appellate authority namely the Central Board of Revenue had confirmed the order of the Collector of Customs, that order must be deemed to have been merged in the appellate order and that the latter alone could be the subject of attack in a Court and not the order of the Collector. The contention was that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution over the Central Board of Revenue which is functioning in New Delhi and that as the petitioner had to have the order of the Central Board of Revenue quashed before he could get any relief, this Court could not entertain this petition. I am unable to accept the objection to the jurisdiction of this Court. In the first place, I entertain serious doubts as to whether the theory of the merger of an original order in an order of the appellate authority which merely refuses to interfere has any application to the orders of quasi-judicial tribunals such as we are concerned with here. I put this to learned counsel for the respondent and he was unable to place before me any decision in which the petitioner seeks to challenge only the order of the Collector and it is conceded that if no appeal had been filed against that order, this Court could entertain this petition. If the order of the Collector was one passed with jurisdiction then there might be some basis for the argument that it got merged in the appellate order. If the order of the Collector was one passed with jurisdiction then there might be some basis for the argument that it got merged in the appellate order. But if that order was a nullity in that the procedure dictated by natural justice was not followed, there was no order which could be the subject of confirmation by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of mine in W. P. No. 342 of 1953 etc. The question I had to consider there was this: An Industrial Tribunal in this State passed an order in favour of the workmen. The employer took it up on appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal which had its seat of office outside the State. The Appellate Tribunal in one case modified and in another case set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal to the prejudice of the workmen. A petition was filed in this Court to quash the order of the Industries trial Tribunal on the argument that the Industrial Tribunal should be deemed to have passed the order which the Labour Appellate Tribunal had actually passed. I rejected that contention and held that as the order which was impugned was one passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal this Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with that order following Saka Venkata Rao's case in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao. But in the present case, there is no modification of the order of the Collector of Customs by the appellate authority so that the principle upon which I rested my decision has no application. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention reported in "B. N. T. Workers Union v. Labour Appellate Tribunal". But I find it un-necessary to discuss this case in view of my earlier conclusion that the order of the Collector being a nullity there was nothing which the Central Board of Revenue could confirm. I therefore overrule the preliminary objection.12.Dealing with the merits learned counsel for the respondent urged that section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act does not require any mens rea to be proved for an offence to be established. I therefore overrule the preliminary objection.12.Dealing with the merits learned counsel for the respondent urged that section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act does not require any mens rea to be proved for an offence to be established. But this misses the point raised in the petition that no notice was given to the petitioner to show cause and hence he had no opportunity to prove his innocence which could have to be done whatever be the construction to be adopted of Section 167(8). This is particularly so in view of the fact that the introductory portion of the order itself proceeds upon the establishment to the satisfaction of the Collector, of collusion between the broker and the petitioner in the matter of this illegal export. Even apart from this, whether mens rea is an ingredient of section 167(8) or not, it would certainly be a material factor for determining the quantum of punishment. This was not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. Hence in the absence of notice to petitioner the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction and not in conformity with the Sea Customs Act. On this short ground therefore that the petitioner was not given any notice to show cause, nor an opportunity to prove his innocence before the penalty was imposed, the order of the Collector of Customs imposing the fine is quashed, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner will have his cost of this writ petition.