Natural justice and disclosure of relied-upon material vitiate revisional demand orders imposing civil liability.

An SC decision held that a revisional order imposing seigniorage fee and penalty could not stand when it was founded on reports and inspection notes never supplied to the affected parties. The Court reaffirmed that, where an administrative or quasi-judicial order has civil consequences, fair hearing requires disclosure of the material relied upon so the party can meet it meaningfully. It also noted that later inspection material could not be treated as decisive if it was not the basis of the revisional order, and that the earlier departmental concession on the nature of the filling material required proper consideration. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order levying seigniorage fee and penalty could be sustained when it was based on material and inspection notes not furnished to the appellants, and whether the matter required reconsideration in light of the Department's earlier stand.

Analysis: The revisional authority acted on reports and inspection notes which formed the foundation of the demand, but those materials were not supplied to the appellants before the adverse order was made. Where an administrative or quasi-judicial order visits civil consequences, compliance with the rule of fair hearing is mandatory, and the affected party must be given a meaningful opportunity to meet the material relied upon. The Court also noted that the High Court had treated later inspection material as decisive despite its not having been relied upon in the revisional order, and that the earlier departmental concession regarding the nature of the filling material could not be ignored without proper consideration.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter had to be reconsidered after supplying the relevant reports and inspection notes and after examining the effect of the earlier concession.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the High Court's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative or revisional order imposing civil liability cannot stand if it is founded on material not disclosed to the affected party, and such non-supply vitiates the decision when the withheld material forms the basis of the adverse determination.

---