Pre-decisional hearing rights require full time to object; a revisional order passed early was set aside and remanded.

A revisional order passed before the expiry of the seven-day period expressly granted for filing objections was held unsustainable because it deprived the petitioner of an effective pre-decisional opportunity of hearing. The notice had promised time to submit a written response, but the order was made before that period ended, contrary to the stated procedure and in denial of a meaningful chance to contest the proposed revision. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after permitting objections and providing due hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order was liable to be set aside for being passed before expiry of the time granted to file objections, thereby denying the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The revisional notice granted seven days from receipt for filing a written objection. The order was nevertheless passed before that period expired, which deprived the petitioner of the chance to respond to the proposed revision. Such action was inconsistent with the time expressly granted in the notice and resulted in denial of a meaningful pre-decisional opportunity.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after permitting the petitioner to file objections and after granting due opportunity of hearing.

---