Oral hearing under natural justice may be mandatory before adverse excise action where fairness and legitimate expectation arise.

Natural justice in administrative proceedings may require an oral hearing where civil consequences follow, especially if the matter is complex, credibility is in issue, the authority has created an expectation of oral hearing, or the affected party has requested one for fair disposal. Written objections alone may be sufficient in many cases, but not where these factors make personal hearing necessary. On the facts stated, the authority had earlier heard the petitioner and then altered the basis of the proposed adverse excise action without granting a further oral hearing. The denial of oral hearing was treated as a breach of natural justice and the impugned order was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts of the case, the petitioner was entitled to an oral hearing before an adverse excise order was made and whether failure to grant such hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the content of natural justice in administrative proceedings where civil consequences followed. Written objections may suffice in many cases, but an oral hearing becomes necessary where the matter is complicated, where the authority has created an impression that the party will be heard orally, where credibility or veracity is material, where the party requests personal hearing for a fair disposal, or where penal consequences are proposed. On the facts, the authority had earlier heard the petitioner and then shifted the basis of the proposed adverse action, creating a legitimate expectation of further oral hearing. The subject matter also involved legal questions requiring focused consideration before any adverse determination was made. The petitioner was not orally heard before the impugned order.

Conclusion: The denial of oral hearing vitiated the order as contrary to natural justice, and the order was liable to be quashed.

---