Natural justice and mandatory service requirements justified quashing an ex parte adjudication and remitting the dispute on merits.

Mandatory service of hearing notices and a real opportunity of hearing were not complied with before ex parte adjudication, so the order was treated as unsustainable for breach of natural justice. The High Court also accepted that, in exceptional cases of gross injustice or procedural unfairness, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may be used despite a time-barred statutory appeal; the delay in filing the appeal was therefore condoned and the matter remitted for decision on merits. The dispute was sent back for fresh consideration after full hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte adjudication order was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with mandatory service requirements. (ii) Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal could be condoned in writ jurisdiction and the matter remanded to the appellate authority.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte adjudication order was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with mandatory service requirements.

Analysis: The challenge was that the adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte without effective service of hearing notices and without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court applied the mandatory requirement of service under the statutory scheme and relied on the principle that where a statute prescribes a particular mode, it must be followed in that manner. On the facts, the Court found that the adjudication suffered from violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order was held unsustainable for breach of principles of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal could be condoned in writ jurisdiction and the matter remanded to the appellate authority.

Analysis: The Court considered the limitation regime governing appeals and the limited scope of writ intervention where statutory appeal is time-barred. Referring to the exceptional-category rule recognised in precedent, the Court held that writ jurisdiction may be exercised where gross injustice is demonstrated, particularly when the impugned order is jurisdictionally defective or procedurally unfair. On the facts, the Court accepted the explanation for delay and found that the petitioner had suffered injustice warranting intervention.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in writ jurisdiction and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the ex parte adjudication was quashed, the delay in appeal was condoned, and the dispute was sent back for a fresh decision on merits after giving the petitioner a full opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory service and hearing requirements are not duly complied with and gross injustice is shown, the High Court may invoke Article 226 to quash the order, condone the appellate delay, and remit the matter for decision on merits.

---