Tribunal grants appellant right to be heard, emphasizing natural justice principles.

The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application, condoning the delay in depositing the ordered amount to restore the appellant's right to be heard by the adjudicating authority. Emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted the appellant the opportunity to exercise the right of defense, highlighting that the violation of natural justice is an incurable defect. The decision, based on settled legal principles and legal precedents, ensures that parties are not deprived of their right to a fair hearing, even in cases of delay or non-compliance with orders.

---

---

Issues involved:
Condonation of delay in depositing the ordered amount for restoration of appellant's right to be heard by adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of condonation of delay in depositing the ordered amount to restore the appellant's right to be heard by the adjudicating authority. The appellant, due to financial hardship, failed to make the deposit within the stipulated time frame, resulting in the adjudicating authority facing difficulty in hearing the appellant. The Tribunal acknowledged the serious observation made in its previous order, highlighting the prejudice caused to the appellant's interest due to the violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the violation of natural justice is an incurable defect even at the appellate stage, and failure to condone the delay would result in the appellant being thrown out of the process of justice.

The Tribunal invoked settled legal principles, emphasizing that the appellate power is coupled with the incidental and ancillary power to ensure justice to the parties. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal highlighted that if an order affects the rights of a party, the appeal should be maintainable. The Tribunal, relying on legal precedents, including the decision of the Apex Court and the High Court of Calcutta, decided to condone the delay in depositing the ordered amount to enable the appellant to exercise the right of defense. The Tribunal clarified that its decision in this case should not be used as a precedent in the future, given the peculiar circumstances and the legal infirmity the impugned order had suffered.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application, granting the adjudicating authority the freedom to provide an opportunity for the appellant to be heard and receive justice. The judgment underscores the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring that parties are not deprived of their right to a fair hearing, even in cases of delay or non-compliance with orders.

---