4.Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the respondent filed their counter affidavit. I posed a specific question as to whether in the impugned orders, statements of those three persons namely., M/s.Mekala Timber and Hardwares, Rajakkamangalam, M/s.Dhayalan Timber Traders, Rajakkamangalam and M/s.Pathirakaliamman Transport, Sivakasi, have been relied upon. The petitioner's counsel drew my attention to the relevant portions of the impugned orders. There is no dispute whatsoever that their statements have been relied upon. When statements of certain persons have been relied, it is the duty of the respondent to serve copies of the said statements to the petitioner so that the petitioner can deal with them in their explanation. That alone may not be sufficient. The respondent should also make available the persons who gave the statements, if the petitioner wanted to cross examine them. The respondent would state that they are not having access to those documents. That is beside the point. When the respondent has chosen to place reliance on certain documents, it is his duty to serve a copy of the same to the petitioner. In the case on hand, copies of the relied upon documents have not been served on the petitioner in advance. The persons who gave statements adverse to the petitioner were not made available for cross examination. It is relevant to note that the petitioner had made a specific request for cross examination of those three persons also in his explanation. In fact the petitioner had stated that he is handicapped and he is unable to offer full explanation in the absence of those copies.
