S. K. Kapur ( 1 ) THE petitioner firm has by this writ petition asked for quashing of certain orders of the Central Government and of the Central Board of Revenue (as it was then called) directing the confiscation of printex F gum. The order of the goods was. however, allowed to clear the goods on payment of certain penalties. The petitioner claims that the goods imported being "gum" covered by Open General Licence under Import Trade Control Schedule item 7, were exempt from imposition of any customs duty during the relevant period. The goods were imported on the following dates. The first consignment arrived on 3-6-1955 and was allowed to be cleared by the Customs authorities without payment of any duty. The second, third, fourth and fifth consignments arrived on 1-8-1955, 14-9-1955, 6-10-1955 and 9-11-1955 respectively. The order of the Deputy Collector of Customs with respect to the second consignment has not been filed and the orders with respect to the other three consignments are annexures b , bi and b2 respectively to the petition. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue against the said four orders and the only order filed is annexure h to the petition with respect to the last import. It is said that the other orders of the Central Board of Revenue are similar but since no personal hearing was allowed in spite of requests, the words at the time of hearing do not appear therein. The petitioner then filed revision petitions to the Central Government with respect to the second, third and fourth consignments imported and not with respect to the last consignment, since the Central Government had already taken a view adverse to the petitioner. The order of the Central Government is annexure j to the petition. Mr. Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Central Board of Revenues and the Central Government acted in disregard of the principles of natural justice in as much as in spite of requests no oral bearing was; 41 2 granted by the Central Board of Revenue with respect to the three consignments and by the Central Government in all the three cases in which revision petitions were filed. He relied on various authorities that while hearing appeals and/or revisions the concerned authorities were expected to act in a quasi Judicial manner. He relied on various authorities that while hearing appeals and/or revisions the concerned authorities were expected to act in a quasi Judicial manner. It is settled law that these authorities, though expected to act quasi-judicially are not bound to give an opportunity to the party or discussion. In cases involving intricate questions of facts and/or law, it would undoubtedly, be more appropriate on the part of the Central Board of Revenue to give an oportunity of discussion where asked for, but generally speaking it is enough if they consider the arguments and representations submitted to them in writing. This having been done, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be held justified. The learned Counsel then contended that the orders of the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government suffered from an infirmity in as much as they were not speaking orders and no reasons had been given. The learned Counsel said that the orders of the Central Board of Revenue were subject to revisional jurisdiction by the Central Government of ought to have been reasoned orders. He relied on a Bench decision of this Court in Messrs Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durga prasad Tumsar v. The Union of India, That authority does not help the learned counsel for the petitioner. There the original order by the Collector gave no ressons and similarly the Central Board of Revenue disposed of the appeal without incorporating any reasons for their decision. In the light of these facts, the learned judges held that the orders stood vitiated. Here, the Deputy Collector of Customs has given resons and the Central Board of Revenue disposed of the appeal by a very brief order, but on the ground that they saw no cause to interfere with the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs. It follows that the Central Board of Revenue under the reasons given by the Deputy Collector of Customs. It was then said that the Central Board of Revenue observed in its orders that they had considered all the arguments put forth in the appeal. There were various additional grounds put forth and the Central Board of Revenue ought to have dealt with the same. Even if that be so, it was open to the petitioner to make this grievance in its revision petitions to the Central Government. The grounds of revision, however, so that no such grievance was made. There were various additional grounds put forth and the Central Board of Revenue ought to have dealt with the same. Even if that be so, it was open to the petitioner to make this grievance in its revision petitions to the Central Government. The grounds of revision, however, so that no such grievance was made. Moreover, if some reasons are given but certain grounds are not considered in the order, that may be a good ground to be urged before the appellate or the revisional authority. It cannot Perse constitute a ground for holding that the order deserves to be quashed by a writ petition. So far as the order of the Central Government is concerned, that was final under the statute and no further remedy by way of revision or appeal lay. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Central Government was also obliged to give detailed reasons. No doubt, the order which is not a speaking order may impose a disabilty on the person aggrived to challenge it by a writ petition. But that is different from saying that a non-reasoned order of a final authority must necessarily be quashed. In such cases if the. objection in the writ petition relates to jurisdiction aid can always be taken from extraneous evidence by way of affidavit in support of plan based on absence of jurisdiction. Otherwise this Court can rectify in order only when it speaks. I must, however, say that in such cases it is always proper, at least on the part of the authorities up to the Central Board of Revenue whose orders are subject to appeal and/or revision, to give reasons for their decision. However, having regard to 413 the circumstances of this case as observed above, it is difficult for me to uphold the petitioner s contention. It was then said that the Central Board of Revenue placed reliance on the Deputy Collector s report as stated in the said order without the petitioner even knowing the contents thereof and without its having had any opportunity to meet, rebut or explain the same. There can be no doubt and its goes without saying that in exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers every Court or Tribunal is required to act strictly ,in conformity with the rules of natural justice. There can be no doubt and its goes without saying that in exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers every Court or Tribunal is required to act strictly ,in conformity with the rules of natural justice. One of the foremost principles of the natural justice is that party to dispute should have a fair hearing and should have a full opportunity of meeting the case of the opposite paity m rebutting its evidence. No party to the litigation should be allowed any chance to influence the mind of the Judge at the back of the other party. But for the fact that this point was neither raised in revision before the Central Government nor in the writ petition, I would have had no hesitation in quashing the orders impugned on this short ground. I am not suggesting for one mement that the Central Board of Revenue had any improper motive in referning to the report of the Deputy Collector. For the purposes of this question, it matters not whether or not the report was hostile to the petitioner or it contained any material which could have the effect of influencing their mind. But the mere fact that it was not divulged to the petitiener who has had no opportunity of explaining the same would be sufficient to vitiate orders. Consequently in relying on the said report, the Central Board of the Revenue did just what the authorities lay down should not have been dene. It is well to emphasise that quasi-judicial autborities should adhere to the principles of natural justice which are the very foundation of the rule of law. In this case, however, the petitioner neither raised the point before the Central Government nor in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court. In these circumstances, I find it difficult to quash the orders oil the contention raised. It is not merely as a matter of technicality that I am disallowing the contention, for if the petitioner had raised the point in the writ petition it would have been open to the respondents. to show that the prtitioner firm know about the Deputy Collector s report. It is not merely as a matter of technicality that I am disallowing the contention, for if the petitioner had raised the point in the writ petition it would have been open to the respondents. to show that the prtitioner firm know about the Deputy Collector s report. To hold as a fact that the Deputy Collector s report was used behind the back of the petitioner would be travelling in the realm of conjecture in favour of the petitioner without its having said so ( 2 ) ANOTHER contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was by reference to a letter annexure d to the petition from Asistant Director. Ministry of Commerce and Consumer Industries, on the application of the petitioner for import of printex F . In the said letter the Asistant classified the item under Part V. Serial No. 7 of the aforesaid Schedule. The learned counsel vehemently urged that the Government could not be permitted to approbate and reprobare and take two inconsistent " stands with respect to the classification of the said item. I do not think that the authorities exercising qasi-judicial functions were bound by a classification made by the Ministry of Cornmerece and Consumer Indusitries. This contention of the petitioner must also, therefore, fail. ( 3 ) THERE remains then the last contention of the petitioner that the item imported was gum within the meaning of item 7 of the said Schedule. . That turns on consideration of facts and I cannot inexercise of power under Article 226 susbtitute my own views for the views of the authorities concerned. ( 4 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.