Reasonable opportunity of hearing required before disposal; writ matter set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

A decision rendered without affording a party a reasonable opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained. The Gauhati HC found that the writ petitioner was not heard when the writ petition was disposed of because counsel was absent, and it did not examine the merits of the tax dispute. To secure the ends of justice, the impugned judgment was set aside and the writ petition was remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be remanded for fresh decision on the ground that the writ petitioner was not heard before the learned single Judge.

Analysis: The appellate court did not enter into the merits of the tax dispute. It noted that the writ petitioner had not been heard at the time of disposal of the writ petition because its counsel was absent. In those circumstances, and in order to secure the ends of justice, the court held that a party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before a decision is rendered, and the matter ought to be heard afresh.

Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the writ petition was remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the earlier dismissal was annulled and the underlying writ proceeding was restored for reconsideration after hearing both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision rendered without affording a party a reasonable opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained, and the proper course is to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh adjudication.

---