Natural justice and unreasonable delay vitiated the adjudication order, leading to quashing and remand for fresh hearing.

An adjudication order imposing penal consequences was held unsustainable where effective service of hearing notice was not established and the affected party was denied a real opportunity to respond. The record showed that a written reply had been filed and an earlier hearing had taken place, yet the matter was later proceeded with ex parte without proper notice. The order was also vitiated by an unexplained delay of about two and a half years after hearing, which was treated as inconsistent with fair procedure and the duty to decide within a reasonable time. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after full hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for want of effective service of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing, resulting in breach of natural justice; (ii) Whether the inordinate delay in passing the adjudication order after the hearing rendered the order unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for want of effective service of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing, resulting in breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The record showed that a written reply had been filed and an earlier hearing had taken place, yet the matter was later proceeded with as if no reply had been filed. The subsequent notice and the eventual ex parte disposal did not establish effective service of hearing notice in the manner required. An adjudication affecting civil consequences must be preceded by a real and effective opportunity to respond, and an order passed without such opportunity cannot stand.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the inordinate delay in passing the adjudication order after the hearing rendered the order unsustainable.

Analysis: The order was passed after an unexplained lapse of about two and a half years from the hearing. Such prolonged dormancy after completion of the hearing process was treated as inconsistent with the duty to decide matters within a reasonable time and as offending fair procedure. The delay, coupled with the failure to give an effective hearing, undermined the validity of the adjudication.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order involving penal consequences cannot be sustained where it is passed without effective service of notice and a real opportunity of hearing, particularly when accompanied by an inordinate and unexplained delay in disposal.

---