Undue delay in pronouncing an adjudication order can vitiate the decision when it causes demonstrable prejudice to the party.

Undue delay in pronouncing an adjudication order can justify interference where the delay is unexplained and causes prejudice to the affected party. On the facts, the hearing had concluded long before the order was delivered, and the appellant argued that the belated order failed to address the factual and legal submissions made before the adjudicating authority. The Court accepted that the combination of inordinate delay and resultant prejudice warranted setting aside the impugned order in relation to the appellant, and it confined its consideration to the delay issue without examining the FERA allegations on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate delay in pronouncement and consequent prejudice to the appellant.

Analysis: The appeal was decided on the short question of delay in delivery of the adjudication order. The hearing had concluded long before the order was passed, and the appellant contended that the delayed pronouncement resulted in prejudice because the order did not deal with the factual and legal contentions raised before the adjudicating authority. The Court accepted that, in the peculiar facts of the case, the unexplained and undue delay, coupled with the resulting prejudice, justified interference. The Court therefore declined to enter into the merits of the allegations under FERA and confined its decision to the delay issue.

Conclusion: The delay in pronouncing the adjudication order caused prejudice and warranted setting aside of the impugned order in so far as it related to the appellant.

---