Successor Bench in BIFR proceedings may decide the matter where no prejudice is shown and hearings continue on record.

BIFR proceedings were treated as quasi-judicial, and an opportunity of hearing was implicit in the statutory scheme governing objections to a draft rehabilitation scheme. Where the matter continued on later dates, with written objections, agency comments, clarifications and a supplementary report all on record, a successor Bench could validly proceed and decide the matter if it applied its mind to the existing material and the CPC and BIFR Regulations disclosed no procedural bar. The challenge based on the rule that the person who hears must decide failed because the petitioners raised no timely objection and showed no prejudice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings before the BIFR were vitiated because the final order was passed by a Bench different from the Bench that had earlier heard part of the matter, and whether such objection could be sustained in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

Analysis: The proceedings before the BIFR were quasi-judicial in nature and, in the context of considering objections to a draft rehabilitation scheme, an opportunity of hearing was implicit in the statutory scheme. The record showed that the matter was not concluded on the earlier date and that later hearings took place on subsequent dates with written objections, comments of the operating agency, further clarifications, and a supplementary report all being placed on record and considered. The later Bench applied its mind to the material already on record and issued further directions, showing continuity of proceedings rather than a break in adjudication. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the BIFR Regulations supported the continuation of proceedings by a successor Bench where no specific procedural bar existed. In any event, the petitioners had not objected at the earliest opportunity and no prejudice was shown to have been caused.

Conclusion: The objection based on the rule that the person who hears must decide was rejected, and the proceedings were held not to suffer from any legal infirmity on that ground.

---