Natural justice requires a fair hearing and reasons before serious penalty orders are imposed; defective orders were quashed.

Orders imposing serious civil or financial consequences must comply with natural justice by affording a fair hearing and giving meaningful reasons. The tribunal noted that the second committee issued the impugned penalty orders without granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, despite an earlier presentation before the first committee, and that the orders largely repeated the show-cause notice without explaining the alleged licence violations. These procedural defects caused prejudice and rendered the penalty orders unsustainable, so they were quashed and the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty orders were vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice, including denial of personal hearing, apparent bias, and absence of reasons.

Analysis: The proceedings involved a substantial financial penalty with serious civil consequences, so compliance with natural justice was required. The second committee that led to the impugned orders did not afford the petitioners a hearing, although the first committee had earlier allowed a presentation. The order also contained no meaningful reasons and substantially repeated the show-cause notice, without explaining how the licence conditions were said to have been violated. In such a situation, the petitioners were prejudiced by the procedural infirmities.

Conclusion: The impugned penalty orders were vitiated by breach of natural justice and were liable to be set aside in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the penalty orders were quashed, and the matter was disposed of by granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An order imposing serious civil or financial consequences must be preceded by a fair hearing and supported by reasons, and failure to comply with these minimum requirements renders the order unsustainable.

---