Mandatory personal hearing through video conferencing was denied, so the ex parte order-in-original was set aside and rehearing ordered.

Denial of a mandatory personal hearing through video conferencing under the revised guidelines was treated as a serious procedural defect. The record showed no clear response on the availability of the petitioner's email id, while material produced by the petitioner indicated that the email id was available on the respondent's web portal. As the ex parte order-in-original was passed without complying with the prescribed hearing requirement, it was set aside and the matter was restored for a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorised representative.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte order-in-original was liable to be set aside for denial of a mandatory personal hearing through video conferencing in terms of the revised guidelines.

Analysis: The denial of a personal hearing was treated as a serious procedural defect. The record indicated that the respondent had not given a clear answer on the availability of the petitioner's email id, while the petitioner produced material showing that the email id was available on the respondent's web portal. In these circumstances, and in view of the revised guidelines requiring that personal hearing be afforded through video conferencing, the order was passed without complying with the prescribed hearing requirement.

Conclusion: The ex parte order-in-original was set aside and the matter was restored for granting a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorised representative.

---