Part-heard tribunal proceedings must be decided by members who heard the case; mid-hearing joinder breaches fair hearing.

In a part-heard appeal, the Delhi HC noted that the statutory scheme did not authorise a new member to join mid-hearing after substantial arguments had already been heard. A tribunal exercising judicial power must act fairly, and the member who hears the parties should ordinarily participate in the decision. Allowing a member who had not heard the arguments to join part-way deprived the affected party of a real opportunity to address that member and undermined natural justice. The temporary absence of one member did not justify a hearing arrangement that compromised procedural fairness. The petition was allowed, and the appeals were directed to continue before the original two members.

---

---

Issues: Whether a member who had not heard a part-heard appeal could join the Tribunal mid-hearing and participate in deciding the appeal, and whether such a change in bench composition violated the requirement of a fair hearing.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the Tribunal Regulations did not prescribe that a part-heard appeal must be re-heard only by a freshly reconstituted full bench, nor did it authorise a procedure that permitted an additional member to join after substantial hearing had already taken place. A tribunal exercising judicial power must act fairly, and the core element of that fairness is that the member who hears the parties should also participate in the decision. If a member who has not heard the arguments joins mid-stream in a part-heard matter, the affected party is deprived of a real opportunity to address that member, which undermines both procedural fairness and public confidence in adjudication. The temporary absence of one member did not render the Tribunal dysfunctional, but that could not justify a hearing arrangement that offended natural justice in a part-heard appeal.

Conclusion: The addition of the third member to the part-heard appeal was impermissible, and the petition was allowed by directing the Tribunal to continue the appeals before the original two members who had heard the matter earlier.

Ratio Decidendi: In a part-heard judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, the deciding authority must ordinarily be composed of the members who actually heard the matter, and a member who did not hear the arguments cannot join mid-hearing and participate in the decision if that would impair fair hearing.

---