CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS. , J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by the following order after hearing Counsel for parties, ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a coffee planter in Badaga village of Kodagu District. It is his case that he sent 189 gunny bags of coffee beans to Mysore Coffee Processing Co-operative Society Limited, mysore, under transfer Permit No. 3 bearing No. 386s. It is also his case that the general practice is that the carriers will load the coffee into the vehicle and entrust the same to the driver with the transfer Permit to deliver to the Coffee Board agent. The society at Mysore received the consignment on 29. 2. 1976. The petitioner has asserted that he was paid Rs. 30,850-57 by two cheques bearing the date 2. 3. 1976 and 19. 4. 1976 on the State Bank of India, Mercara Branch, which payment constituted part payment to the Coffee supplied. On 29. 10. 1976 nearly 8 months after the consignment of coffee, to the society, the petitioner received a show cause notice from the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bangalore who is the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner was charged with having sent coffee which was not grown on his estate; that the 189 bags of coffee were made up from the collection of spilled coffee beans while unloading and loading at the Society's premises at Maysore. The petitioner showed cause in this reply to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent. That was followed by an enquiry held by the 2nd respondent. At the enquiry, the petitioner wanted the samples of Coffee beans supplied by him to the society to be sent to an expert for his opinion for purpose of finding out whether such sample was homogeneous mixture of different types of Coffee beans. The petitioner has asserted that the collector had agreed to the suggestion and asked the petitioner to abide by the result of such a test. But, the expert of the Coffee Board returned the samples sent to him on the ground that the quantity of Coffee beans supplied to him was insufficient to make a test as indicated earlier. It is the petitioner's case that without giving further opportunity to the petitioner, the Collector (2nd respondent (concluded the enquiry and passed an order dated 29. 12. It is the petitioner's case that without giving further opportunity to the petitioner, the Collector (2nd respondent (concluded the enquiry and passed an order dated 29. 12. 1978 which is produced as annexure-B to the petition. By the said order, the Collector found the petitioner guilty of the charge under Rule 9 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. By the said order, a fine of Rs. 2. 000/- has been imposed on the petitioner as well as the confisication of the bags of Coffee beans. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 1st respondent-Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delh. The Board has dismissed the appeal concurring with the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent-Collector. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforementioned two orders, the petitioner has filed this Writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution inter-alia contending that the order at Annexure-B made by the respondent-Collector is vitiated in as much as no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner after the Coffee Board's expert returned the samples. It is also urged that the conclusion reached by the 2nd respondent is vitiated in as much as he has relied upon material collected behind the back of the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN the statement of objections filed, the respondents have denied the allegations that there was no adequate or proper opportunity to the petitioner. The other facts are not disputed. ( 6 ) SRI Gowrishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to para 6. 1. of the order of the 2nd respondent. It is convenient to extract the same and it as follows. 6. 1 The Official Rubber Stamp impression and the stamp itself along with the original and duplicates foils of T P. 3 No. 3865 dated 29. 2. 1976 issued by D. M. Thim-maiah and the statement dated 23. 6. 1976. of Sri A. V. Shankara Murthy, Assistant Coffee Inspector, Billkere check Post in original alongwith the other connected records were sent to the Government examiner of questioned Documents, Hyderabad on 25. 8. 1970, for his examination and opinion. His opinion dated 15. 9. 2. 1976 issued by D. M. Thim-maiah and the statement dated 23. 6. 1976. of Sri A. V. Shankara Murthy, Assistant Coffee Inspector, Billkere check Post in original alongwith the other connected records were sent to the Government examiner of questioned Documents, Hyderabad on 25. 8. 1970, for his examination and opinion. His opinion dated 15. 9. 1978 confirming the Department's stand that the T. P 3 issued by Sri d. M. Thimmaiah was a fake one (containing forged signature of Sri D. M. Thimmaiah and Sri a. V. Shankara Murthy and fake seal of Coffee Board Check Post) was made available to the advocate and the parties for offering their further submissions therein. ( 7 ) THE Counsel submits that the above material on which the Collector acted upon was made use of without an opportunity for the petitioner to deny the same or even to lead his own expert evidence in that behalf or at least subject the Government Examiner to cross-examination with reference to the forgery of seals and signatures of Officers. ( 8 ) SRI U. L. Narayan Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute that such an opportunity was not given to the petitioner. In that position, the 2nd respondent's order is ex-facie illegal as he has relied upon material collected behind the back of the petitioner to find him guilty of serious charges and therefore I have no hesitation to hold, the enquiry was in violation of the rules of natural justice in the circumstances of the case. ( 9 ) FOR the above reason, the order is not sustainable and the order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. ( 10 ) THE appellate order passed by the 1st respondent is also set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the 2nd respondent to hold enquiry afresh giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to meet the charges levelled against him including the one with regard to the obtaining of forged transfer Pass; ( 11 ) IN the result, rule will accordingly issue. The impugned orders at Annexures-A and B are hereby quashed. But it is made clear that in this petition this Court is not concerned with the action taken against the Mysore Coffee Processing Co-operative Society Limited. ( 12 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.