Personal hearing in adjudication is essential where requested; an order passed without it cannot survive later withdrawn proceedings.

An adjudication order passed without affording a requested personal hearing is vulnerable where the record shows that the affected party sought adjournment and hearing. The defect is compounded when later adjudication proceedings are conducted, counsel is heard, written submissions are considered, and those subsequent orders are then withdrawn. In such circumstances, the original order cannot be sustained because it was made without the requested hearing and was later displaced by fresh proceedings. The impugned order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order was sustainable when it was passed without affording the appellants personal hearing and was later followed by fresh adjudication orders which were thereafter withdrawn.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellants had sought adjournment and personal hearing, that a personal hearing was in fact granted later, and that fresh adjudication orders were passed after hearing the appellants' counsel and considering written submissions. It was also established that the later adjudication orders had been withdrawn. On these facts, the original order could not be sustained, both because it had been made without affording the requested hearing and because it stood displaced by the subsequent adjudication process.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order passed without affording a requested personal hearing, and subsequently displaced by fresh adjudication proceedings, cannot be sustained in law.

---