Natural justice in forfeiture proceedings requires personal hearing by the deciding authority; successor order was set aside.

Quasi-judicial forfeiture proceedings require observance of audi alteram partem, and the authority deciding the matter should ordinarily be the one that hears the affected party. Where a successor authority passes the order without granting the appellant a personal hearing, reliance on the existing record does not cure the defect. The Tribunal found that this amounted to a breach of natural justice, so the forfeiture order could not be sustained and was set aside, with the matter remanded for a fresh hearing on the existing record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the forfeiture order was liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice because the authority that passed the order did not grant the appellant a personal hearing.

Analysis: The proceedings before the Competent Authority were quasi-judicial in nature, and the rule of audi alteram partem required that the authority deciding the matter should ordinarily be the one that heard the affected party. The record showed that the impugned order was passed by a successor authority who had not given the appellant the hearing, and the defect was not cured by reliance on the records alone. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision-making process suffered from breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order could not be sustained and was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing on the existing record.

---