Natural justice in revision and delayed writ relief: ex parte revisional orders are void, but belated writs may be refused.

A revisional authority acting under the Act must comply with natural justice and hear the affected parties before deciding the matter; an ex parte revisional order made behind their back was treated as a nullity and set aside, with remand for fresh decision after hearing. Where petitioners were heard in the impugned proceedings but failed to pursue the statutory revision and filed writ proceedings after substantial delay, the writ remedy was declined as not maintainable. The commentary therefore distinguishes between breach of audi alteram partem, which invalidates the revisional order, and belated invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting the available statutory remedy, which may bar relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suo motu revisional order made without hearing the petitioners was a nullity for breach of natural justice. (ii) Whether the writ petition filed after delay and without pursuing the statutory remedy was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the suo motu revisional order made without hearing the petitioners was a nullity for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The revisional authority proceeded to decide the matter in the absence of the petitioners and without granting them a hearing. The procedure relied upon by the authority was held inapplicable to tribunals functioning under the Act. Such authorities are bound at least by the principles of natural justice, and they cannot decide a controversy behind the back of the affected parties.

Conclusion: The ex parte revisional order was a nullity and was rightly set aside. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision after hearing the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition filed after delay and without pursuing the statutory remedy was maintainable.

Analysis: In the fifth petition, the petitioners were present and heard when the impugned order was made, but they did not pursue the revision remedy provided by the Act. The writ was filed after a long delay, and the Court found no sufficient ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in the face of such delay and non-availment of the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The fifth writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment granted relief in respect of the petitions involving an order passed without hearing, while refusing relief in the petition where the statutory challenge was not pursued in time and the writ remedy was invoked belatedly.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial or revisional authority must hear the affected party before deciding the matter, and a writ court may decline relief where the petitioner sleeps over the statutory remedy and approaches belatedly without adequate cause.

---